Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

FINSBURY SQUARE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Social Services

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proposals have been made by the Governments of the High Commission Territories for pension or other schemes for old age, disability, and blindness.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 25th October of last year.

Mr. Brockway: Things have happened since then. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Union of South Africa has now introduced pensions for old age, disability and blindness? Cannot we at least do something similar in our British Protectorates?

Mr. Alport: Her Majesty's Government are anxious to improve the standard of social services in any way that is possible in accordance with the economic conditions of the territories, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit, it is important that economic development should be the precursor of any elaboration of the social services, because without a basis of economic development it would be impossible to carry them very far.

Mr. Brockway: I would not admit that.

Urban Areas, Swaziland (African Settlement)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what provision is made, or planned, for the settlement of Africans in urban areas in Swaziland; and, in particular, what are the housing facilities for Africans in the urban districts of Hlatikulu, Mbabane, and Bremersdorp, respectively.

Mr. Alport: In Mbabane and Bremersdorp Africans own numerous freehold plots on which they may erect their own buildings. In addition, Africans are permitted to erect temporary buildings free of charge on Government land in Mbabane, Bremersdorp, and Hlatikulu. Housing is provided in urban areas for Africans in Government service. The Resident Commissioner has recently appointed a Committee to advise him on future plans for African settlement in urban areas.

Mr. Brockway: While I welcome recent advances, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the urban areas are reserved for Europeans, whether there is segregation in locations, and whether Africans are placed in areas which are some distance from their work? Will he look into this matter?

Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on that subject, I will do my best to answer it in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Constitution (Conference)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the earliest date on which


the conference, provided for in Article 99 of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, may be convened.

Mr. Alport: 23rd October, 1960.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten Sir Roy Welensky about this, because he has spoken of two and a half years as the period in which amendments to the Constitution can be achieved?

Mr. Alport: The date to which I have referred is the one which is effective on the basis of the provisions of Article 99 of the Constitution. I am sure that the Prime Minister of the Federation is well aware of it. He may have spoken rather broadly about the time.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there appears to be any attempt to hasten the conference unduly in order to secure an advantage for some group or community, it will not only increase resentment but make much more difficult the task of those who seek constitutional reform?

Mr. Alport: The provisions in the Constitution are quite clear on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS MIGRATION BOARD (CHILD ALLOWANCE)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if the Government will now implement the recommendation of the Oversea Migration Board in their successive annual reports that the child migration allowance of 10s. per week per child to the Fairbridge Society and the Northcote Children's Emigration Trust should be increased to £1 per week per child.

Mr. Alport: My noble Friend has considered this recommendation but has reached the conclusion that it would not be right to increase the maintenance rates for migrant children on the information at present available to him.

Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend is now Chairman of the Oversea Migration Board, which has twice made this recommendation in successive reports—it was, in fact, a recommendation to him from

his predecessor—will he use his influence with the Treasury to secure the implementation of such a relatively modest but helpful increase?

Mr. Alport: If my hon. Friend has any further information which he would like to put before me or would care to discuss the matter with me, I shall be only too glad to go into it with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals

Mr. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what protests he has received from the Education Authority of the County Borough of West Ham over the price of school meals; what was the nature of the recent protest, and his reply; and whether he will give details of the fall-off of meals taken at school in West Ham for each of the years from 1951.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The West Ham Local Education Authority wrote to the Ministry on 22nd March and a reply was sent on 2nd April last; I am sending the hon. Member a copy of these letters. As the answer to the last part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that a number of hon. Gentlemen, both on this side of the House and the Government side, would like to know the details of the protest? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore circulate it in HANSARD? Will not the figures which he mentions confirm that each time the price of the meals has gone up there has been a fall-off in the number of children taking school meals? Will he do something to bring down the price of these meals?

Sir E. Boyle: The figures for West Ham to which this Question relates, while falling sharply between 1952 and 1953, have fluctuated quite a good deal since from year to year. I cannot say what other factors besides the change in the charge may have contributed to this fluctuation.

Following is the information:

The annual returns submitted by the West Ham Authority give these figures for a selected day in the autumn of each year:


Year
Number of pupils taking the school dinner
This number as a percentage of the pupils present


1951
…
10,523
41·2


1952
…
11,260
42·4


1953
…
9,035
34·7


1954
…
9,356
34·1


1955
…
9,825
36·5


1956
…
9,480
34·6

Mrs. Slater: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the number of school meals provided for the months of February, March, April, and May for 1956 and 1957, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available, as my Department's returns relate to a selected date in the autumn.

Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in almost every area, and particularly in large industrial areas, the number of children taking school meals is dropping and that in Stoke the drop was 7,000 in the month of May? This is largely due to the fact that the school meal has gone up in price. Would the hon. Gentleman take every possible care to get local authorities and teachers to see that no child suffers and that free meals are available if the need arises?

Sir E. Boyle: It will not be possible to make a valid comparison with 1956 until we have the normal autumn return in the latter part of the year. That will show the full effect of the increase from 10d. to 1s., which took effect in April of this year.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that this miserable economy at the expense of the poorest children must inevitably be reflected in their physique? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the stunted child never recovers, however much food it is given in after years?

Sir E. Boyle: When the full figures are available at a later stage we can discuss these matters, when I am sure the right hon. Lady will have eloquent remarks to make, including more remarks about physique.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at the facts that have been brought out, both arising from this Question and from Question No. 5? Does not it become evident that there is a clear causal connection between rising prices and the falling-off in school meals and that the matter ought to be looked at again?

Sir E. Boyle: The question specifically relates to
February. March, April and May for 1956 and 1957.
I did suggest that we should suspend judgment until the normal autumn return is available.

Mr. N. Pannell: Is it not a fact that the children of the poorest parents get these meals free?

Hon. Members: No.

Warwickshire

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will estimate the percentage grammar school intake in the area served by the Atherstone Grammar School in the County of Warwick.

Sir E. Boyle: About 14 per cent.

Mr. Moss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he has given only a nominal percentage and that the effective grammar school intake is more like 10 per cent.? Is he aware that this fall is caused by the deferment of some pupils until September, 1958? Is he further aware that this is also the percentage of selective intake as well as of grammar school intake, and will he ask the county education authority to look at this particular area and then report how he proposes to raise selective education nearer to 20 per cent.?

Sir E. Boyle: It is worth bearing in mind that extensions to Atherstone Grammar School will be ready by September, 1958, and that the standard of selection in this part of the county is no more severe than in others.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what staffing deficiencies exist in secondary modern schools at Wilnecote, Kingsbury, Atherstone and Polesworth in the County of Warwick; and what deficiencies are expected in September, 1957.

Sir E. Boyle: I understand from the Warwickshire Local Education Authority that at present these schools have eight fewer teachers than they would wish. I cannot say what the position will be in september.

Mr. Moss: Can the Minister confirm whether or not there has been a mistake at Wilnecote for September next, where it appears that the teacher-pupil ratio will be 55 to one? It is 38 at Atherstone, 28 at Polesworth and 27 at Kingsbury. Is he aware that in the Report of the United Nations on the World Social Situation it is stated that the world teacher-pupil ratio is only betwen 35 and 36?

Sir E. Boyle: The staffing of individual schools is a matter for the local education authority, but if there is one particular detail regarding a particular school perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps are being taken to make more grammar school places available in the area served by the Atherstone Grammar School in the County of Warwick either by enlargement of the existing grammar school or by the organisation of General Certificate of Education courses at other appropriate secondary schools.

Sir E. Boyle: Atherstone Grammar School is being extended and a G.C.E. course has been started at Polesworth County Secondary School.

Mr. Moss: Are not these improvements such as will bring up the grammar intake to 14 per cent. by September, 1958? Is the Minister aware that there will be an inflow of Birmingham overspill population which will require improvements in addition to those he has mentioned?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. In regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I understand that the Warwickshire Local Education Authority is considering the need for providing more places in the selective schools in connection with the possibility of overspill from Birmingham.

Milk Tablets

Mr. Hastings: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education in how many schools milk tablets

are given to scholars in place of fresh or reconstituted milk; and for what reason this choice is made.

Sir E. Boyle: Fifteen. A satisfactory supply of fresh milk cannot be arranged for these schools, and the children prefer tablets to reconstituted milk.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise how much the health of school children depends upon the milk-in-schools scheme? Does he also realise that these abominable milk tablets can never take the place of fresh or reconstituted milk? Has he ever tried to eat ten tablets such as are given to these children, and, if so, how long has it taken him?

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir, but I am told that at some of the fifteen schools using tablets pupils who have previously refused to drink reconstituted milk now seem quite to enjoy sucking their tablets. My noble Friend approves the supply of tablets or dried milk only where he is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements cannot be made for the supply of fresh milk.

Opticians and Dentists

Mrs. Slater: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the number of full-time and part-time opticians and dentists employed in the school medical service of local authorities.

Sir E. Boyle: So far as I am aware no opticians are employed by local education authorities. Last December the school dental service was staffed by 947 dentists in full-time local authority service and 567 others employed on a sessional basis.

Mrs. Slater: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Stoke there are part-time opticians employed at very large fees, that every local authority is having very great difficulty in obtaining full-time dentists, and that this position is having a very detrimental effect on the service which can be given? Is he further aware that many school medical officers are now saying quite definitely that a comprehensive school dental service is impossible? Would he not consult his right hon. and learned Friend to see what inducement and encouragement can be given to dentists to undertake this work?

Sir E. Boyle: I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend about this, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Heatlh. It is fair to point out that the staff of the school dental service in England and Wales has risen appreciably during the last five years, although we all recognise that it is still well below optimum requirements.

Teachers

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what financial help is available from public funds to teachers taking supplementary courses in mathematics.

Sir E. Boyle: Teachers employed by local education authorities are seconded on salary to supplementary courses in all subjects. Tuition is free. Other expenses are borne by the teacher.

Mr. Stewart: Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered that this arrangement, while quite suitable for a teacher without any dependants, is not altogether suitable for teachers with families dependent on them? Will he look at the matter in view of the importance of persuading teachers to take up this course?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, I will consider any matter the hon. Gentleman likes to bring to my attention. I am writing to him about the particular case he raises.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will now introduce the necessary regulations to ensure that all future entrants to the teaching profession shall have received training either in a recognised training college or in a university training department; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask if he is aware that this Question includes one of the motions which was passed at the recent Conference of the National Union of Teachers and that the profession feels strongly about it? Will he try to give a reasonable reply?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the strong views of the National Union of Teachers on this

matter, but he must also take into account all the needs of the schools. We cannot afford to recruit into the maintained schools fewer graduates and other untrained specialists than we do now.

Miss Bacon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education how many students desirous of entering a teachers' training college in 1956 were unable to gain a place in 1956 and were again refused admission in 1957.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.

Miss Bacon: Will not the hon. Gentleman take steps to get this information? Is he aware that for years past parents have been told that there is this shortage of teachers and they have been encouraged to keep their children at school, but it is pretty hard on those parents if, after keeping their children at school until they are 19, they find the children cannot enter training colleges?

Sir E. Boyle: There is no central register of applications. In any case, the figure for which the hon. Lady asks would really mean little by itself. It is important to have quality as well as quantity.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that one of the effects of the proposed three-year training as at present conceived will be to reduce the number of places available for people proposing to take up the teaching profession? Would he not accept, therefore, that it is important to get a figure of this kind so that we may know whether we are turning away from the profession people who are qualified to take it up?

Sir E. Boyle: More students are being admitted in 1957, but at the same time competition is keener than it was in 1956, which I should have thought was not a bad state of affairs.

Miss Bacon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will devise machinery whereby students who remain at school to become teachers and fail to gain a place in a training college one year are given high priority for the next year.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. My noble Friend thinks that colleges are right to


choose the best candidates, without giving priority to those who have made previous applications.

Miss Bacon: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if boys or girls are suited to be teachers they ought to be admitted to training college at least in the second year in which they apply, and that if they are not suited to be teachers, they ought to be so informed in order that their parents can arrange another career for them?

Sir E. Boyle: I really disagree with the hon. Lady on this question. We want quality, and the only way to get that is to get colleges to judge people on their merits. If the would-be teachers improve their academic ability between the first time they apply and the second time they apply, so much the better, but it would be wrong to interfere with the rights of colleges to examine applicants on their merits.

Mrs. Slater: Does this not raise the question of provision of places in training colleges, because it means that many girls and boys who are unable to get into college in the first year or the second year will give up the idea of teaching altogether? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the whole problem again in the light of freeing all places?

Sir E. Boyle: That question raises rather wider questions which we discussed in April. At the present time we are getting more students in the colleges; the improvement in quality is not a bad thing.

Educational Maintenance Allowances (Increases)

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what conclusions he has reached on the Report of the Working Party on Educational Maintenance Allowances; and what action he proposes to take.

Sir E. Boyle: The Report is being published today. My noble Friend is informing local education authorities that he accepts the Working Party's recommendations that the general level of maintenance allowances should be raised, but he has decided to approve maximum allowances of £40, £55 and £65 a year for pupils aged 15, 16 and 17 respectively, in place of

the somewhat higher figures recommended by the Working Party.

Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and my noble Friend upon this advance.

Smoking and Lung Cancer

Mr. Hastings: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that senior pupils in schools are made acquainted with the latest conclusions of the Medical Research Council on the probable relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung.

Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend has sent copies of the statement in the House on 27th June to local education authorities and to all independent schools. My noble Friend considers that it must be left to teachers themselves to decide how to make their senior pupils acquainted with these conclusions. He hopes, however, that they will in any case also encourage young people to use their own judgment on the choice of the best directions in which to spend their money.

Mr. Hastings: Cannot the Minister go a step further and make direct suggestions to the teachers—suggestions from the Ministry have a great effect on teachers—so that they may make sure that children leaving school at any rate know the up-to-date facts as to the relationship which is believed to exist between cigerette smoking and cancer of the lung and other diseases?

Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree that teachers should acquaint pupils with the facts, but how they do so is best left as their own responsibility. It would be a mistake for this advice to be too negative. The important thing, surely, is to point out the very wide range of choice which people have in our modern society, and it seems that the wider approach would obviously be the best one.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the hon. Gentleman approach the Central Council for Health Education with a view to a rather more lively presentation of the facts, about which it knows a great deal?

Sir E. Boyle: I will consider that, Chapter 13 of the well-known Handbook on Health Education will be brought up to date before it is reprinted.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Anglo-Argentine Trade

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that our balance of trade with the Argentine Republic has been about four to one by value against the United Kingdom for several years despite the intentions expressed in the agreement of 1955, what steps he proposes to take to bring this trade more into balance.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I share my hon. Friend's regret that the value of our exports to the Argentine Republic is not more closely related to the value of our imports. But, in assessing the balance, allowance must be made for considerable Argentine purchases of raw materials from other countries in the Commonwealth, and of oil produced and sold by British companies.
The Agreement of 1955, to which my hon. Friend refers, has been superseded by new arrangements which put Argentine payments and trade with us and most other countries in Europe on a non-discriminatory basis, and I hope that these arrangements will enable our exporters to increase their trade in this important market.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the trade the Argentine does with the Commonwealth makes up for the lack of exports of ours which she takes? Is it not wrong that we should buy £6 million worth of wheat and £27 million of meat from the Argentine in the first five months of this year in view of this colossal unbalance of trade, bearing in mind that Australia probably would like to sell us both more wheat and more meat?

Sir D. Eccles: The Argentine purchases from the Commonwealth are very heavy. I shall let my hon. Friend know how nearly they make up the gap. I think we need the Argentine meat, and I would not be in favour of cutting it off.

European Free Trade Area Products (Gelatine)

Mr. Marquand: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during international discussions concerning a European Free Trade Area, he will seek

to secure general recognition that edible gelatine is a food product.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The tariff arrangements for the European Free Trade Area will be based on the Brussels Nomenclature, and the experts who drafted this Nomenclature classified all types of gelatine along with chemicals and allied products.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all the materials from which edible gelatine is made are included already within Chapters 1 to 24 and that edible gelatine, which is undoubtedly a food product, the only true one, is not included in Chapters 1 to 24? As it is so simple and does not include any other product, would not the right hon. Gentleman try to get an agreement at O.E.E.C. or elsewhere to include this one product?

Sir D. Eccles: No. Sir. I am told that the situation is not simple. Gelatine and glue are substantially the same thing. They are used very largely for industrial purposes, particularly in the plastics industry. The distinction the right hon. Gentleman asks for would be rather difficult to make.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this product is made in two factories only in this country, with the aid of assistance under the Development Areas scheme, that it is produced entirely from bones from this country or imported from India, and is a valuable Commonwealth trade? Ought he not at least to make one effort to see if he can help it under these new arrangements?

Sir D. Eccles: My information is that the industry in this country is not at all unanimous about this and that some of them would like to go into the Free Trade Area.

Apples

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of Italian apples for the five months ended 31st May, 1957, exceeded those of the comparable period in 1956 by 5,600 tons; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the quota is not again exceeded in the full year, in view of the value of these imports already being £100,000 worth in excess of the comparable figure last year.

Sir D. Eccles: There is no separate quota for Italian apples. They are imported under a quota which applies generally to countries in Western Europe and most other non-dollar countries outside the Sterling Area. The quota was in fact under-used by more than £150,000 in 1956, and the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question does not, therefore, arise.

Major Legge-Bourke: Whilst fully appreciating the point made by my right hon. Friend about the O.E.E.C. countries being covered by the quota and not Italy separately, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a very serious aspect of this matter in that the volume goes on increasing although the monetary quota stays the same? Could he so devise some way by which we should limit the volume each year rather than basing it purely on the value?

Sir D. Eccles: I will look at that.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, despite the monetary quota for imports of apples from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries having been set at £3 million in both 1954 and in 1956, the volume of such imports has increased by nearly 25 per cent. in both the January to June and the July to December periods; and what action he proposes taking to safeguard the British grower, bearing in mind that the official wholesaler-to-retailer prices for 1956 show that the value of Italian apples alone exceeded £4 million on the home market.

Sir D. Eccles: The volume of imports appears to have increased because the quota has been more fully used and there has been a bigger proportion of cheaper apples. I do not think that the published wholesale prices for 1956 justify the conclusion which my hon. and gallant Friend draws from them, and I have no reason to believe that the value limit of £3 million under the quota was exceeded.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern amongst British growers that the quota is being abused? Will he make it quite clear to importers that if it is abused the quota will be reduced in subsequent years?

Sir D. Eccles: I have no evidence of under-invoicing, but if my hon. and gallant Friend would like to bring any to my notice, I will look at it. If the quota is exceeded, we shall certainly have to take appropriate action.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the value and quantity of imported apples has risen from 143,350 tons at a cost of £10,997,662 in 1954 to 189,037 tons at a cost of £14,240,962 in 1956; and whether, in view of the fact that United Kingdom growers have, with Government encouragement, recently increased their production, he will state what is now his policy on this matter.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. Nearly a third of the increase was due to higher imports under the open general licence from sterling Commonwealth countries and the balance mainly to imports from Canada and the United States of America which were not resumed until late in 1954. It remains the Government's policy to place no restrictions on imports of apples from Commonwealth countries in the sterling area. Those from other areas continue to be restricted by quotas.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as a result of encouragement given by Government after Government since the war, and particularly by the Government of 1945–50, home growers increased their production and a great many trees were planted in that period which are now coming into full fruit? It is, therefore, important, in order to implement the Tory Party's pledge to the growers, that he should see that non-Commonwealth imports are kept under very careful supervision.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. We are constantly under pressure to increase these quotas and we have not yielded to that pressure.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister aware that if the orchards in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) are as bare of apples as is my garden, we shall need all the apples we can get from overseas?

Norwegian Barter Arrangement (Motor Cars)

. Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the British motor car industry that their cars should be exported to Norway under a barter arrangement in exchange for sprats; and if he will take steps to bring this type of international trading to an end.

Sir D. Eccles: Multilateral trading is certainly preferable to barter deals, but private traders are free to make export and import arrangements which do not contravene our licensing system or the exchange control.

Sir D. Robertson: How can it be in the interests of the motor car industry and of the nation for us to export high-grade engineering products and in exchange to accept low-grade sprats?

Sir D. Eccles: I have no evidence on the grade of the sprats.

Mr. Jay: Even if we do not want open general licences for motor car imports, has not the Scottish fishing industry a genuine grievance here, and what does the President intend to do about it?

Sir D. Eccles: I intend to keep canned sild on open general licence.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that trade with Norway in engineering goods is very closely restricted by Norwegian quotas? Is he further aware that the home manufacturers thought that they were doing a good job for the United Kingdom by opening up some trade, even if only on a barter basis?

Sir D. Robertson: Is it right for the nation to use dollars for steel for manufacturing cars and then to exchange the cars for sprats?

Tobacco

Mr. Hunter: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of tobacco leaf imports from the United States of America for the year 1956; and the total value of tobacco leaf imports from the Commonwealth countries for the same year.

Sir D. Eccles: The figures are £42 million and £33·3 million, respectively.

Mr. Hunter: In order to save dollars and to help the balance of payments, will the Minister encourage greater purchases of the better leaf from the Commonwealth countries instead of from the United States?

Sir D. Eccles: I do, but it is a fact that the manufacturers here are already buying all the good-qualify leaf which they can get from the Commonwealth.

Anglo-Canadian Trade

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the plan officially announced by the Prime Minister of Canada to divert 15 per cent. of Canada's imports from the United States of America to imports from Great Britain; what steps he proposes to take to encourage British exporters to take advantage of this plan; and if, in return, he will encourage the purchase of more wheat from Canada in order to help to dispose of her wheat surplus.

Sir D. Eccles: We all welcome the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada that his Government aim to divert 15 per cent. of Canadian imports from the United States of America to this country. We shall study urgently any proposals the Canadian Government may care to send us. In the meantime, the prospects from this end are being examined. We have good hopes that British industry can supply what Canada wants.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that we ought also to give encouragement to Canada by buying more from her? Could we not buy more wheat from Canada and less from the United States, in view of the fact that we bought £22 million worth from Canada in the first five months of this year and £40 million worth from the United States?

Sir D. Eccles: We buy our wheat on open general licence and there is, therefore, nothing to stop Canada selling us more than she is selling us now. In order to divert purchases of wheat we should have to adopt methods which my hon. Friend might think objectionable.

Mr. de Freitas: Dealing with exports to Canada, will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously to see whether the quality and the quantity of the staffs of our trade


commissioners in Canada are good enough to give our exporters the help which they need?

Sir D. Eccles: I have been looking at that and I have been much encouraged by the testimony from British industry to the quality of those staffs. I agree with the hon. Member that we must continually keep it under review.

United States Tariff Quota (Wool Cloth)

Mr. Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade what answer he has received from the Government of the United States of America following the representations made by Her Majesty's Government in the interests of the wool textile industry with reference to the imposition of further restrictions upon imports of wool fabrics into the United States by means of a tariff quota of only 14 million lbs.; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: No answer has been received, and I am not in a position to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in answer to Questions on 4th June.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute concern about this in the wool textile industry? Will he do what he can to get the American Government to give a sympathetic answer in this problem? Is he aware that there is a feeling that the industry is being used as a whipping boy, when I am sure he knows that there are quite different reasons for the fall in production amongst American producers?

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I have made very strong representations to the United States.

Mr. Wade: In view of the urgency of this matter and of the fact that valuable dollar-earning contracts are being lost as a consequence of this tariff quota, would the Minister be prepared to make further representations, even if only to get the date postponed when the increased tariff will come into effect?

Sir D. Eccles: I think we had better await the reply to our note.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this tariff quota is almost prohibitive in the high-class woollen trade of this country and that it is no protection of the American domestic trade, because none exists in this quality? Is it, therefore, not an infringement of the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?

Sir D. Eccles: I think it is right to say that the American Government are within their legal rights in doing what they have done, but it certainly injures our trade and has a particularly bad effect, as my hon. Friend says, on the high-quality cloth.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Estate Duty (Collection)

. Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the difficulty caused to many executors through their having to pay Estate Duty on the delivery of the Inland Revenue affidavit; and if the arrangement can now be revised so that the duty will not be payable until probate has been granted and the executors placed in a position to deal with the assets of the estate.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The present law provides an essential safeguard for collection of duty; but if my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case where difficulty has arisen, I should be pleased to look into it.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is a little unfair for executors to have to borrow money and to commit themselves in other ways before they are legally in a position to deal with an estate? Is he further aware that the almost indecent haste with which Estate Duty has to be paid often forces executors to realise assets not at their best value?

Mr. Powell: It has been the case ever since this duty existed that it has been payable before probate, and I understand that few cases of real difficulty arise. I am, however, anxious to look into any which my hon. Friend will bring to my attention.

Mr. Gower: Apart from individual cases, may I ask whether my hon. Friend considers that the fact simply that it has always been done in the past is a good reason to maintain it if it inflicts general hardship?

Mr. Powell: I am inclined to think that, in general, the reason is good. It has been looked at time after time and has always been considered to be a necessary safeguard of the revenue.

National Savings Certificates (Encashment)

. Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that British subjects who bought National Savings certificates in Egypt during the war are now unable to cash these certificates in England; if he is aware of the inconvenience and concern which this ruling is causing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: All applications for repayment of certificates which have been received by the Post Office have been met in full; but my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will examine any particular cases which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir F. Medlicott: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is, in fact, no question at all but that these certificates are freely and readily encashable, as, indeed, all securities issued by the Brutish Government should be at all times and in all places?

Mr. Powell: Certainly.

Premium Savings Bonds

. Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the Premium Bonds scheme up to the present time, distinguishing between prizes and advertising and administrative costs; and what is the ratio between the total expense incurred and the amount of money invested.

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount lent to the Government in Premium Bonds; the amount paid out as prizes; and the administrative and advertising costs of the scheme for the latest available date.

Mr. Powell: The amount remaining invested in Premium Savings Bonds at

the end of June was about £82½1 million. The total prize money in the first two draws was slightly below £1¼ million, and administrative and advertising costs up to the end of the second draw are estimated at £1,650,000. The ratio between the total expenses incurred and the amount invested is about 1 to 28.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is not having to pay rather heavily for the money that is being raised in this particular way?

Mr. Powell: This is a most welcome addition to National Savings. The recent results have been very promising indeed, and so far it has been well worth the investment.

Dr. King: Can the Financial Secretary give any estimate of the new money included in the figures which would not have been lent to him under old schemes? Is he really of the opinion that the very heavy expenses he has mentioned warrant the new scheme, having in mind the money which would have been subscribed under the ordinary system?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member must bear in mind that National Savings generally, as well as the Premium Bond scheme within National Savings, did extremely well last year, and are doing very well this year.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the diversion of all this money from the gilt-edged market is one of the causes of the fall in gilt-edged prices?

Mr. Powell: Not a large part of what is bought in ones and twos and small denominations is likely to be diverted from the gilt-edged market.

Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the administrative expenses compare with the administrative expenses of other forms of National Savings; and whether the use of the automatic machine is an economy?

Mr. Powell: I think the question of the automatic machine is one for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to answer. Of course, there is no other form of National Savings which has been so recently launched and on which, therefore, the initial publicity cost is so high.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a great number of


people who invest in this particular type of bond would never otherwise put their money into savings?

Mr. Powell: I am quite certain of that.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Financial Secretary say how many right hon. and hon. Members have invested in Premium Bonds?

Mr. Powell: It would not be proper for those names to be discosed.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the £ sterling in 1911 compared with today.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): It is estimated that £1 in 1911 had the equivalent purchasing power of £4 7s. 7d. in May, 1957.

Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that so far the effects of the Chancellor's speech in the City yesterday have been, first, a further fall in the price of War Loan, and secondly, a rumour that there is to be an autumn Budget? Even if the Chancellor cannot prevent a fall in gilt-edged, can we at least have an assurance that there is not to be an autumn Budget?

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse the interest rates with the credit of the country. When our long-term rates were 2½ per cent. our currency was weaker than ever it has been before or since.

Mr. Jay: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give a plain assurance that there will be no autumn Budget this year?

Mr. Birch: There will be no autumn Budget.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question seems very remote from the value of the £ in 1911.

Cost of Living

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee of the House or a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of inflation and the cost of living.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: As the Economic Secretary does not know how to solve the problem of inflation and the high cost of living, and neither does the Chancellor, nor, apparently, the Prime Minister or the Government—and some others sitting beside me do not seem to know what the solution is either—would it not be desirable to refer it either to a Select Committee or to a Royal Commission in the hope that they will be able to provide a solution, or are the Government to do nothing about it?

Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman already knows, there is already a Royal Commission on Monetary Policy, which is a very important aspect of this problem, but I do not think that what he mentions is an aspect of policy which would be suitable for reference.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it, in any case, necessary to hold an inquiry of this nature, when everyone knows that one of the chief reasons for the rise in the cost of living is the failure of the nationalised industries, which produce less at increased cost? How can we as a nation ever solve this problem when power and transport, on which the production of everything depends, keep rising in price?

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Economic Secretary say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that this really is a most serious and grave matter? One can hardly open a newspaper without seeing signs of a steadily developing inflation which, if it continues, will put the country in a very serious condition. When are the Government going to take hold of the problem, together with the employers and the trade union leaders on a genuine basis of co-operation, instead of drifting along, with this inflationary process going on all the time, which will ultimately land the country in a state of ruin?

Mr. Birch: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have studied with attention my right hon. Friend's speech yesterday. He is also making an important speech tomorrow to the National Production Advisory Council.

Hon. Members: What about the House?

Mr. H. Wilson: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor's speech yesterday, while very grave in tone, produced no answer to the problem but represented a posture of complete abdication—unfortunately, not resignation? Is he aware, also, that the Radcliffe Committee—which, incidentally, is not a Royal Commission—is not likely to report for two years? Are we to have no economic or financial policy during that time?

Mr. Birch: We have an admirable economic and financial policy.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of the Chancellor yesterday did not propound a solution, and he did not pretend that he had one; nor will his speech tomorrow or on any other day provide one. Speeches cannot solve the problem. In view of the fact that the Radcliffe Committee is lot looking all round the wicket on the subject of inflation and the cost of living, but is confining itself to monetary policy, would it not be wise—I appeal to the Prime Minister now—if he were to consider the appointment either of a Committee of this House, which would deal with the matter impartially, or a Royal Commission?

Mr. Birch: As I said before, I do not think either a Royal Commission or a Select Committee can really deal with these matters which cut across every possible line of Government policy.

Tax Office, West Hartlepool

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what reply he has given to the representations he has received from the West Hartlepool Corporation about the proposed closure of the tax office in the town.

Mr. Powell: The town clerk of West Hartlepool wrote to the regional collector on 5th July. The Board of Inland Revenue has today replied, explaining that the new arrangements will cause little inconvenience to residents of West Hartlepool, but will make a substantial contribution to economy and efficiency.

Mr. Jones: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that within five miles of this tax collector's office live more than 100,000 people? If this office closes it

will mean that the nearest office will be either in Durham, twenty miles away, or in Stockton, twelve miles away. Does he expect even the decent citizens of West Hartlepool to pay their taxes if he makes it as awkward as possible for them to do so?

Mr. Powell: The vast majority, of course, pay them not by going to the collector's office but through the post. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that poundage-free postal and money orders are available for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Commonwealth Transfers

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist for established civil servants to transfer to the Civil Service of another member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Powell: United Kingdom Departments do all they can to meet Commonwealth requests for the loan of staff with particular experience and qualifications. These loans are usually for short periods. There are also arrangements for the interchange of staff employed on similar work in different countries, for example, between the Ministry of Labour in this country and its counterpart in Australia. In addition to these organised transfers, if an established civil servant obtains a post in the Civil Service of a Commonwealth country, he normally retains his claim to pension entitlement in respect of United Kingdom Civil Service.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some time ago the Home Secretary, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, gave me to understand that some new arrangements were being made for broadening the service, and can he say what those new arrangements are? Is he aware that since then there appears to be considerable confusion between his Department, the Department of Commonwealth Relations and the Colonial Office on this matter, including lost correspondence between the three Departments?

Mr. Powell: I am not aware of any confusion. I will look at any case the right hon. Gentleman brings to my attention, but the arrangements about which I have informed the House have been increasingly used in recent years.

Administrative Class (Candidates)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what long-term policy he proposes in order to secure enough candidates of the right quality for appointment to the administrative class of the Civil Service and the senior branch of the Foreign Service.

Mr. Powell: Applications this year are substantially greater than last, but it is still too early to gauge the effect of the recent improvements in pay and conditions, or of the new arrangements for publicising these careers among university students.

Mr. MacPherson: When the hon. Gentleman says that applications this year are substantially greater than they were last year, has he any prospect that the one-third of places which were not filled last year in the administrative class and the nearly one-half places not filled in the senior branch of the Foreign Service are likely to be filled in addition to the new vacancies this year? In spite of increased salaries, does he not consider that the root cause of the shortage, namely, competition from industry, is something which needs a broader long-term policy?

Mr. Powell: The relation between conditions and pay of the Civil Service and of outside industry has, of course, recently and most authoritatively been examined. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the results of this year's competition are not yet available.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this year there were 226 candidates for 12 vacancies in the senior branch of the Foreign Service shows that there is really not very much to be anxious about?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI ISLANDS

Constitution

. Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of the Fiji Islands for constitutional reform.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Government of Fiji have the question of constitutional reform under review, but

no proposals for change have been submitted to me.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing tension in the Colony because of the hostility of native-born Fijians to native-born Indians living in the Colony, and, as the matter can become aggravated, will he not make representations to his right hon. Friend that the Governor should be called upon urgently to produce the sort of scheme which would prevent this happening?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that is necessary. In the Governor's address to the Legislative Council in November last year, he said that he was carefully considering the resolution of the Council of Chiefs regarding the election of Fijian members, together with other aspects of electoral reform. My right hon. Friend still awaits specific proposals from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Discussions

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir John Harding about the future of Cyprus.

Mr. Profumo: The Governor arrived in this country on the 6th July for discussions on current matters relating to Cyprus. I have no further statement to make.

Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we can expect a further statement on the matter, and will he say whether, in the meantime, the question of direct consultation with representatives of the Cypriot people is under consideration, and also whether or not it is the intention that Sir John Harding shall return to Cyprus at the end of his leave?

Mr. Profumo: With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is certainly the intention that Sir John Harding shall return to his post as soon as these meetings have come to an end, perhaps after a short spell of leave. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: But may we take it that Sir John Harding's visit means that at last the Government are throwing off their unjustifiable slothfulness in this matter? Is the Under-Secretary aware, and is the Prime Minister, who seems to find this so amusing, aware, that in the opinion of the country the time is long overdue for the Government to take a new political initiative in order to further constitutional progress in Cyprus?

Mr. Profumo: I have told the hon. Gentleman before that I simply do not accept that sort of statement. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper, and that is as far as I am prepared to go.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Government undertake to inform this House fully of any new proposals they may have in mind for the future of Cyprus—judging from recent newspaper reports, it rather looks as if there may be some—and will the Government undertake to do that before there is any question at all of opening negotiations with foreign Powers?

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend will, of course, inform the House, as he always does, whenever there is any development of which the House would wish to be informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Telephone Communications (Interception)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions during the past six years he or his predecessors have given permission for telephone conversations to be tapped; for what purposes these conversations were intercepted; and what was the last date when such action was taken; and
(2) on how many occasions during the past six years he has given his permission for telephone calls of shop stewards and trade unionists connected with industrial disputes to be intercepted; and whether he will give the dates of such interceptions.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): As I have made clear in previous replies, it has always been

the practice, in the public interest, not to disclose the extent to which the power to issue warrants authorising the recording of telephone conversations has been used, or to divulge information as to its exercise in particular cases or classes of cases. I am not prepared to depart from that practice.

Mr. Lewis: But can the Home Secretary give any logical reason why the details in these Questions cannot be given, and, further, can he say why he will not make a statement as to the last date on which such action was taken and on how many occasions trade union officials and executives have had their phones tapped? Surely, that does not interfere with the security of the State. Will he not answer those questions?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am following precedents set by my predecessors in this matter, and I am not prepared to go further than my Answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that his statement does not in any way debar the Committee of Privy Councillors now considering this matter from publishing what they think to be necessary in this matter?

Mr. Butler: The Privy Councillors have very wide terms of reference, of which, I understand, they are taking full advantage. I would expect them to publish what they think is right.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. Might I ask for your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the Government claim that their power to give these warrants and permissions and exercise this power is derived from a prerogative, and one assumes that that is a Royal prerogative, now exercised according to our constitutional practice on the advice of Ministers. The Ministers are responsible Ministers, responsible to this House for the advice which they give to the Crown. Is it, therefore, proper for a Minister exercising a prerogative power, when he is asked by a Member of the House what he has done, to refuse to say what he has done?

Mr. Speaker: The rule with regard to Questions, laid down, I think, in Erskine May, is that matters in themselves secret cannot be the subject of Parliamentary


Questions. If a matter is of itself secret, as this appears to be, it seems to be debarred as a subject for questioning.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that does not quite cover the point I raised. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) has not asked for any secret information about the details of persons or occasions. He has asked for numbers, and only for numbers.

Mr. Speaker: I think that hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, if he has a constitutional point of that complexity to raise, had better give me notice about it and I will try to do what I can with it. At the moment, it is not a point of order. If the hon. Member thinks that the Home Secretary is acting unjustifiably, he has his normal Parliamentary remedy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the effect which the proposed entry of Britain into the European Free Trade Area will have upon the British fishing and shipbuilding industries; and if he will give an assurance that no binding agreement in this matter will be entered into until the representatives of all the elements in those industries shall have been consulted and given their assent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): We have made it clear from the outset that our proposals for a Free Trade Area do not extend to food. British fishing would not, therefore, be affected. The shipbuilding industry is not, for the most part, protected by a duty. Nevertheless, the Departments concerned are in close touch with representatives of this industry.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that these industries will be very glad to have the declaration that they will not be in any way prejudiced by this novel plan?

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon that food will not be affected by these proposals contradict the statement made at the meeting he addressed only two nights ago, when a European statesman said that agriculture would have to be a matter of compromise?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the proposals which were put forward by Her Majesty's Government for trying to create a European Free Trade Area, it was made clear from the beginning that it was not to include a whole range of products, broadly the products of the soil.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, as a result of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in London just concluded, he will formulate his policy relating to Commonwealth and Empire investment, development, and trade; and if he will indicate the nature of the investments, developments, and trades affected and the extent of the agreed participation in each by the respective members of the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the communiqué issued at the end of the recent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. As there stated, the United Kingdom will continue to play its leading role in furthering economic development in the countries of the Commonwealth. We shall also continue to seek to expand our trade with other Commonwealth countries to the maximum possible extent. As regards investment, we hope to publish a White Paper shortly reviewing the position.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister agree that in these important matters the solidarity of the Commonwealth should be the primary consideration?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very rapidly changing nature of the sterling area, particularly as regards the sterling balances of Ghana, Malaya and other areas, and is he also aware that in the country there is more than a suspicion that the Government spokesmen at this Conference were more active in selling the idea of their European Free Trade Area proposals than in developing new and dynamic Commonwealth trade policies to deal with this very serious position in the sterling area?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that is a fair picture of what took place in the Commonwealth Conference, and it is certainly not the picture which has been given by those who attended it.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the recent restriction on the acquisition of Canadian securities was discussed with the Canadian Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Cyprus.

Consideration of the Motion relating to Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council.

TUESDAY, 16TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 17TH JULY—It is proposed to conclude the Report stage of the Finance Bill by 7 o'clock.

We shall then consider the opposed Private Business which has been set down by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, for which it will be necessary to suspend the Ten o'clock Rule.

Second Reading of the Road Transport Lighting Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

THURSDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Industry in Scotland.

Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Agriculture Safety Regulations.

FRIDAY, 19TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by 2 o'clock.

Committee and remaining stages of the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill,

the Geneva Conventions Bill [Lords], and of the Road Transport Lighting Bill
[Lords].

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper on disarmament will be published?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend hopes that it may be published next week, probably later rather than earlier next week.

Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the House of Commons should have an opportunity, before the Recess, for discussing the wider aspects of our industrial affairs, with particular reference to the relationship between wage demands and productivity, since that relationship lies at the root of our inflationary problem?

Mr. Butler: It is always very difficult to fit in debates at this time of the year. There is a number of Supply days and beyond that I cannot give any undertaking in view of the number of days that are left and the nature of the business which it is desired to fit in.

Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the new subsidies for the fishing industry, in view of the fact that The Scotsman, on Tuesday of this week, contained a report of a private meeting, addressed by the Minister and one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland at which they informed the fishing group of the Tory Party what these new subsidies were to be?

Mr. Butler: It is always interesting to obtain from the Press accounts of party meetings on either side; but I cannot give an actual date for any action which the Minister desires to take. I will, however, inform the hon. Gentleman after acquainting myself of the Minister's intentions.

Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look into this point, because I am assured that the meeting took place and was addressed by the Minister a Joint Under-Secretary of State? Surely it is a little discourteous to the House that information should be given to a private meeting of a political party before it is given to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into it, but I am not aware that any decisions were announced at that meeting at all. All I can do, not having been apprised of the statement in The Scotsman, is to look into the matter.

Mr. Hoy: We are very concerned about this. I am willing to send the newspaper to the right hon. Gentleman.

Dame Irene Ward: As the Litter Bill of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is due to go to Standing Committee on Wednesday morning, would my right hon. Friend, as one of the Ministers responsible, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, see that the appropriate Amendments that the Ministries want are in the hands of hon. Members before the Committee sits? Further, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Government will not drag their feet on this Bill, which the whole of the House wants?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter which is in the hands of the private Member responsible for the Bill. So far as I am concerned, I must not interfere with the discretion of the hon. Member.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the whole House will obviously want to insist that there must be a debate on the grave developments of the inflationary situation before we adjourn for the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position, by the time that debate takes place, to announce positive policies for dealing with inflation, instead of just washing his hands of the matter as he did in his speech yesterday?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we may be perfectly satisfied that the Chancellor knows what he is doing.

Mr. Ramsden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity for a debate on local government before the House rises, in view of the fact that there are three White Papers now upon which the House has not yet had an opportunity of expressing an opinion?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is hoped to have a comprehensive debate on local government and its various aspects, which have already been put before the House, before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. S. Silverman: While sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficulties which he must have in trying to accommodate all the hon. Members who want him to find time for debates between now and the end of the Session, may I ask him whether he has noticed upon the Order Paper a Motion, fairly substantially signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to the case of one humble individual, Alfred George Hinds, and, if so, whether he is aware that there are a great many Members of the House who have paid some attention to this case and think that there are, in the case itself, quite apart from the man's own great courage and determination, a number of disquieting features which, in the public interest, should be further investigated?
Does he think that it may be possible to find a short time on a day between now and the end of the Session when this matter might be further explored?

[That this House calls the attention of the Home Secretary to the case of Alfred George Hinds, now serving a long sentence of imprisonment, who has always protested his innocence of the offence of which he was convicted, who has twice escaped from prison and who is now on hunger-strike, and urges him in the public interest to set up a Select Committee or some other appropriate form of public inquiry to investigate all the circumstances and report whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case.]

Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware that there is anxiety about this case. I have now had an opportunity of looking at it myself, although I have not given it the full study which it deserves. If we cannot find an occasion for a debate, that does not estop hon. Members from putting to me any points that they want to put. I think that they should take that opportunity if they so wish; but I will certainly pay attention to the request of the hon. Member.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend why he has decided to give a whole day, Thursday, to a debate on


Scottish industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and only half a day on Friday to the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which affects the whole of Great Britain? Since Scotland is only a small part of Great Britain, is it not possible to have a switch round and give the whole day on Thursday to the Finance Bill and the half day on Friday to Scotland?

Mr. Butler: First, this is Opposition time and must be defended as one of our constitutional usages and, secondly, it is customary at this time of the year to have two days to discuss Scottish affairs. It is very important, therefore, that this debate should take place and the needs of Scotland be considered.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Reverting to the Hinds case, does the Home Secretary remember that he told me, in Answer to a Question the other day, that there is no means whereby a person in the position of Hinds, who is dissatisfied with the result of a disciplinary tribunal, can have his case reheard, adduce evidence and be represented by counsel or next friend? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great injustice may be done to this man unless his case is reconsidered and dealt with before the Recess?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the Recess makes any difference. It depends very much on the consideration given to this matter by the Secretary of State. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put any point before me, he is at liberty to do so at any time of the year, whether the House is sitting or not.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Braine: During Question time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to a possible White Paper on investment and development in the Commonwealth. Can my right hon. Friend say when this White Paper will be available to hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: We hope that it will be published before the end of the Session. I will let my hon. Friend know the sort of date that we have in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so charged and issued under or in consequence of any provision of that Act and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under section sixty-two of the Superannuation Act. 1949, as applied by subsection (3) of section three of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1950.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL OFFICES SALARIES AND PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for increasing the salaries of the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, of county court judges and of metropolitan police magistrates, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund which may be directly or indirectly attributable to any provisions of the said Act providing for—

(i) increases, as from any date not earlier than the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, in the salaries of the said recorders, judges and magistrates;
(ii) the calculation of the pensions payable to the said recorders by reference to their increased salaries;
(b) any increase attributable to any provisions of the said Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section ten of the Criminal Justice Administration Act. 1956.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL OFFICES SALARIES AND PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL SALARIES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the salaries of certain Ministers and of the Leader of the Opposition, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament and the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable out of moneys so provided or chargeable on and payable out of that Fund, as the case may be, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) increasing as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the amount or maximum amount of the annual salaries authorised to be paid under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, and other enactments regulating the salaries of the holders of Ministerial office, where that amount does not exceed three thousand pounds;
(b) removing, as from that date, certain restrictions imposed by the said Act of 1937 (as amended by subsequent enactments) upon the receipt of salaries or allowances in respect of membership of the House of Commons, and upon the payment of pensions under section four of that Act to persons who are in receipt of such salaries or allowances;
(c) applying to persons holding office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the provisions of section forty-one of the Superannuation Act, 1949.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(OFFICIAL SALARY OF CERTAIN MINISTERS AND OF THE LEADER OF TIME OPPOSITION.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(4) The maximum amount of the annual salary authorised by subsection (4) of section one of the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, to be paid to the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household is hereby increased to two thousand two hundred and fifty pounds.
I do not propose to detain the Committee very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I tabled this Amendment because we thought we should draw attention to the work carried out by the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. This


appointment is always considered most unimportant and I do not think the Committee generally realises the amount of work that has to be done. The compilation every day of a report to Her Majesty, which has to include personal impressions and a lot of thought, is done by the Vice-Chamberlain, who has certain other duties to which I need not refer here.
I understand that the view is held that other duties of the Vice-Chamberlain in connection with the Whips' Office is a matter for different party practice. Nevertheless, the fact remains that because he has to do this work in the afternoon, he therefore is not able to apply himself to other responsibilities which fall to his lot as a Member of Parliament.
There are in this Chamber at the moment, I believe, four hon. Members who have held this position. I should like to think that they agree with me that although the Amendment comes from the Opposition, the present holder of the office is carrying out his job in the best tradition of the Vice-Chamberlain's office and that, apart from personalities, the position as such should receive some recognition from the House.

Mr. Michael Stewart: If I may add a word in support of the Amendment, it is only to say this. In the whole arrangement of salaries, from those paid to the most eminent Members of the House to those paid to the back bencher, there is always a gradation. The steps are so arranged to fit the different degrees of responsibility. There are the salaries of the Prime Minister, of senior Ministers, of junior Ministers, and of various types of intermediate Minister.
The Amendment relates to a Member of the House whose main duties are those of being a Government Whip, but who has, in addition, the other duties referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). Those other duties carry a certain amount of responsibility and consume a considerable amount of time. There is, therefore, a substantial difference in that respect between him and the other Household officials, and it seems to be in conformity with our general plan of salaries that that difference should be reflected in a moderate difference of salary. This is a matter to which the

Government might reasonably give attention while the Bill is under discussion.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I must advise the Committee that for the very reasons of gradation which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has mentioned, it would be quite impracticable to make this alteration within the scope of the Bill. The Amendment proposes to give to the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household a salary of £2,250, but the Bill, taken in conjunction with the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, provides for one of the Ministers who are commonly referred to as Whips the salary of £2,200 while applying a salary of £2,000 to the rest.
The effect of this Amendment would, therefore, be to give the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household a larger salary than that which is payable to the person who is, in effect, by practice the deputy Chief Whip. Thus a much more extensive regrading than is involved in the Bill would be necessary if anything of the sort which the hon. Member is arguing were to be done. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that this alteration lies outside the scope of what the Bill seeks to do.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Even if, as the Financial Secretary says, this Amendment is outside the scope of what the Bill seeks to do, the Committee nevertheless should consider some other aspects of the responsibilities which devolve upon the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. Those who have served in the Whips' Office—Government Whips' or the Opposition Whips' for that matter —know quite well that the responsibilities of the Vice-Chamberlain are probably much in excess of those which devolve upon other Whips.
One of my hon. Friends dissents, I understand, but I hold firmly to the view that the Vice-Chamberlain has many additional responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has pointed out, the Vice-Chamberlain is specially closely tied to service in this Chamber. If we cannot remunerate the Vice-Chamberlain in accordance with the work he is called upon to do we can still make a clear and justifiable case, even though it may not be possible to implement it through the Bill, to improve his lot. I should like


to have the attention of the deputy Chief Whip for this, for it may be possible for him to make representations about it.
What I suggest is that the duties which reside in the Vice-Chamberlain should be reconsidered. Surely we have reached a time when they could be. Is it really necessary now to have to send every evening a message to the Palace detailing the work of the House of Commons up to a comparatively early hour? It can be a record of only a very limited amount of work done up to, say, half-past six or seven o'clock. I wonder whether, instead of a daily report, there could not be a weekly statement. It would not be so arduous a job to produce a weekly statement, and it would contain a report of the main work of the House of Commons during that week.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). Is it really necessary that the Vice-Chamberlain should have the enormous responsibility of sending a communication to Her Majesty which Her Majesty probably will not read? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am only saying "probably" I would not be dogmatic about that. If Her Majesty reads this document my sympathy extends to Her Majesty as well as to the Vice-Chamberlain. The responsibilities of the Vice-Chamberlain could easily be lightened by sending a marked copy of HANSARD to Her Majesty instead of the daily message.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has raised this matter with the very best of intentions, but I think it is unfortunate that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) should have been made. I fully expected the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to make such remarks as he did.
This work which the Vice-Chamberlain does is traditional, and it has gone on for a great many years. It is quite wrong for anybody in the Committee—and I include myself—to suggest that the practice should be altered. It is not for us to say that it should be. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain is himself unable to speak on the matter,

because I know quite well what he would say on the whole subject if he did speak upon it. I think we should be well advised to leave the matter as it is.

Mr. Wilkins: I did not raise this matter in any frivolous spirit. I emphasised what I myself noted when I saw hon. Friends of mine at work, and that is the arduous character of the work involved in the office of the Vice-Chamberlain. My suggestion was a very serious one. If we cannot adequately remunerate the Vice-Chamberlain through this Bill for the work he is called upon to do, I think that we ought to try to relieve him of some of his responsibilities.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, and I should not have done so had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). What he is asking the Committee to do is to come to a decision on the basis of what he, apparently, knows the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household would say if he were to speak, when, so far, he has not spoken. If the Committee is asked to come to a decision on that basis, then, in all fairness to the Committee, the Vice-Chamberlain ought to tell us what it is that his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield thinks he would tell us, or, failing that, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield, since he knows what is in the mind of that silent functionary, himself should inform the Committee what that is.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sorry that we are having this debate. The Amendment is about the remuneration of the Vice-Chamberlain, not his duties, and I do not understand how the duties have come into the discussion. I should think that the answer to the complaint, if complaint there really is, that these duties are so arduous—and I am sure they are arduous—is that a sensible Whips' Office would so arrange the duties of the Whips, including those of the Vice-Chamberlain, that the Vice-Chamberlain would be relieved of some of his duties other than that duty which has been specifically mentioned—some whipping duties, perhaps.
I have never been a Whip, I am thankful to say. I do not think I have the temperament to be a Whip. I would


never dare to speak disrespectfully of any Whip. I think that a Whip must be of a rather curious temperament. Still, a Whip's life must be a very arduous one. I am sure it is a very arduous one, and I do not believe that the labours of the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household need be any more arduous than those of other Whips. I was joking when I said I never dare to speak disrespectfully of the Whips. I often do, but I do not believe that the Vice-Chamberlain need be overworked if the duties of the Whips are properly arranged.

Mr. George Jeger: Like my hon. Friends, I also wonder why it is necessary that a manuscript recording the proceedings of the House of Commons up to a certain time of day should have to be sent to the Palace when a copy of the accurate record which is kept could he made available instead. I am told by those who have held this office that the message which is sent to the Palace is not merely an objective account of what has happened in the House, but contains a number of personal comments upon what has happened, and the names of personalities to whom things have happened or remarks have been addressed, and from whom they have emanated. If we are asked to vote a higher remuneration to the Vice-Chamberlain, I see no reason why the Members concerned should not know exactly what is contained in these messages when they are compiled and sent.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of order to discuss the contents of the messages.

Mr. Jeger: I was trying to suggest that if we are to be asked to increase the salary or emoluments of the Vice-Chamberlain the extra work for which it is suggested that he should be remunerated should be made available to us here in Parliament. I am sure we should all be very interested to know exactly what the contents are of these messages, and to see whether they are really worth the extra remuneration that it is suggested should be paid.

Mr. Snow: I hope it will not be believed that those messages to Her Majesty are not read. Those of us who have held the position of Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household have

the best of all possible reasons for knowing that, in fact, they are read.
This tradition of sending these messages is of very ancient historical origins. The job was at one time a personal responsibility of the Prime Minister, and it was given to the Vice-Chamberlain because of the pressure of work on the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) introduced his characteristic humour into the debate, but I would point out to him that the Vice-Chamberlain has the personal responsibility of giving to Her Majesty his impressions of what goes on in this Chamber.

Mr, Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. Friend really think that next week's debate on Scottish trade and industry will be duly chronicled and faithfully read by Her Majesty?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I sincerely hope not. I understood that the function of the Vice-Chamberlain, and I hope that I shall be supported by those who have held the position, was to give certain impressions to Her Majesty which might enable Her to paint a mental picture of what went on. The job might we well or badly done, but until it is abolished the Vice-Chamberlain ought to be paid the rate for the job. I ask the Committee to consider this matter a little seriously.
I rather deplored the line of argument put forward by the Financial Secretary, who appeared to rule the Amendment out of order because it would make the Vice-Chamberlain £50 better off than the deputy Chief Whip. Assuming that that is a valid argument, surely the Financial Secretary could have suggested that he would consider the matter and formulate a Government Amendment to regularise that position. I do not think that the Financial Secretary's argument was a very pleasant one, and I hope that the Government will think again.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITU TION AND FUNCTIONS OF ELECTRICITY COUNCIL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 24, leave out "of other persons,".

4.3 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that with this Amendment we should also consider the Amendment in line 25.
It has been urged by the Opposition, both in this House and in another place, that special provision should be made in the composition of the Electricity Council for a representative of the trade unions. That is a claim to which the Government have felt unable to agree, because we think that it is necessary to have the maximum flexibility in the appointment of people to the Council and that if we appoint a person to represent one interest we shall find ourselves committed to agreeing to the appointment of persons to represent other interests as well.
The Amendment from another place proposes that in appointing a maximum of three independent members of the Electricity Council, the qualifications to which the Minister should have regard shall be the qualifications set out in Clause 2 (3) for the Generating Board, which refers to people who have experience of, and have shown capacity in
the generation or supply of electricity, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers.
Therefore, it is made quite clear that in considering these three independent appointments, or as many of them as he decides to make, the Minister shall have regard to candidates having experience of many things, including the organisation of workers. I suggest that the record of this and of the previous Government has shown, and continues to show, that we have a proper appreciation of the service that trade union leaders can render to the country in these matters.

Sir Frank Soskice: We on this side of the House certainly welcome the change which the Minister proposes, so far as it goes. In giving the reasons for not going the whole length that the Opposition wish to go, the right hon. Gentleman said that if he went that length the Measure would not have sufficient flexibility. The term "flexibility" is flexible in itself and does not mean very much. Whilst we would not oppose the change now suggested, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would elaborate what he means by flexibility.
Putting the question bluntly and squarely, why cannot we have a person who is a trade union member, experienced in trade union affairs and in Labour relationships? Why, if there were to be provision for such a member, is the measure of flexibility required not sufficient? It seems to me that the Minister has taken refuge in a somewhat woolly term not infrequently employed on both sides of the House and by Ministers of both political persuasions. I should be grateful if he would elaborate the matter a little more, if he now has the necessary information.

Mr. Maudling: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I quite agree that the word "flexible" is grossly over-used in this House. I once referred to the Bank Rate as a flexible weapon, and I was reprimanded by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who said that it was like knocking in a nail with a rubber hammer, which probably was quite true. If we specify that one member of the Electricity Council should represent a particular interest, there are a number of other particular interests, possibly not, in the view of hon. Members opposite, as important as the trade union movement but also important in themselves, which would be able to claim that they should be represented.
We feel it right that in setting up this very important body for the future of the industry, the Minister should not be inhibited in having to allocate seats on the Council to represent particular interests. By "flexibility" I meant that if we allocated a position on the Council to one particular interest we should almost certainly find ourselves compelled to allocate other seats for other particular


interests, organisations representing industry or the consumers and a number of others. That would inhibit the Minister in appointing the best Council, and that is why we do not feel able to go further than the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, after "three" insert:
of other persons (being persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as mentioned in subsection (3) of the last preceding section)."—[Mr. Maudling.]

New Clause A.—(WHOLE-TIME MEMBERS OF GENERATING BOARD, ELECTRICITY COUNCIL AND AREA BOARDS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 8. at end insert new Clause A:
(1) The office of chairman of the Generating Board or of the Electricity Council shall not be held except by a person appointed as a whole-time member of the Board or Council.
(2) Subject to the preceding subsection, in the exercise of his powers of appointing members of the Generating Board or of the Electricity Council in accordance with sections two and three of this Act, or of appointing members of an Area Board in accordance with section three of the principal Act, the Minister shall secure that as many of the members so appointed as he may consider requisite for the efficient performance of the functions of the Council or Board shall be appointed as whole-time members of the Council or Board.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that, once again, this Amendment was inserted in the Bill in response to promptings from Opposition Members in the other place. It is concerned with the extent to which membership of the Generating Board, the Electricity Council and, indeed, the area boards shall be whole-time appointments. As the Bill was passed by this House, it left the matter very much to the discretion of the Minister, but this Amendment would limit his discretion to the extent of providing in subsection (1) that the chairmen of the Generating Board and the Electricity Council shall be whole-time members. Subsection (2) requires, in that appointing people to the Generating Board, to the Council and to the area boards, the Minister shall secure that he has on each of these bodies enough full-time members to ensure that the functions of the body to which they belong are efficiently carried out.
I suggest to the House that this reaches a proper balance between the importance of having enough whole-time members on each board whilst, on the other hand, ensuring that we do not fetter the Minister in his discretion as to the exact proportion of members of the boards who are whole time and those who are part time.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: We on this side of the House welcome the change proposed by the other place, particularly in relation to the Generating Board. The general effect of the change is to strengthen the tendency towards whole time membership of the boards. That is excellent as regards the Generating Board, and certainly in regard to the more important leadership of the Electricity Council.
There is, however, a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account, namely, that a differentiation should be made in nature between the Generating Board, which is a production body concerned with making electricity, transmitting electricity, having a big functional, technical job to do, and the area boards, which again of their nature are more of a public service and closer to the consumer.
For myself, I think that the case for having more whole-time members on the Generating Board is infinitely stronger than the case for having too many whole-time members on the area boards. Therefore, I think that the emphasis should be on the representation of those interests which are natural to the locality, and which have some bearing on the interests of the local consumers, and are seen to have some bearing.
I hope, therefore, that in making these appointments, in respect of which the Minister now has flexibility, he will take into account the natural difference between the Generating Board on the production side and the area boards on the distribution side.

Mr. Maudling: By leave of the House, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend has that consideration very much in mind. I am sure he will agree in what has been said about the differing functions of the area boards and the Generating Board, and the comparative weight which would be given to whole-time and part-time membership in each.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—(MACHINERY FOR SETTLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOY MENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 1, leave out "Electricity Board" in insert:
of the Scottish Electricity Boards".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on a change which was made in Clause 11 on Report in this House. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, that Clause was designed to provide that the machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment should be negotiated and operated by area boards and by the Generating Board, whereas, in response to views expressed by the Opposition, it has now been made the responsibility of the Electricity Council in England and Wales. However it remains, and must be made clear in the Bill that it does remain, the responsibility of the two Scottish Electricity Boards severally in Scotland, and that will be the effect of this Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: We welcome this change, which is a purely formal change of language consequential upon the major change in the provisions of the Bill, for which we pressed, and we are grateful to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13.—(TARIFFS AND SPECIAL AGREEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 26, leave out "this Act" and insert "the Electricity Act, 1957,".

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another consequential drafting Amendment which arises because Section 49 of the 1947 Act, dealing with the supply of electricity to the railways, has now been replaced by Clause 27 of the Bill. The Clause and the relevant portions of Section 37 of the Electricity Act dealing with retail tariffs have to be dovetailed with the special provisions relating to the fixing of charges for the supply of electricity to the railways. That is done by this simple Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: This Amendment, I understand, is purely consequential on the change which is already in the Bill to Clause 27, and we accept the change.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 27, leave out "Area Boards" and insert "an Area Board."

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, and the next one in line 30, go together, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they be considered together.
Both Amendments are consequential on one which was moved in another place by an Opposition peer and accepted, to the effect that the area boards, when fixing retail tariffs, as they have a responsibility to do, shall consult not only the Electricity Council but also the consultative council for each area. It is already the existing and well-established practice in each of the areas that this should be done, and if these two Amendments are accepted the existing practice will have been given statutory effect. I hope that this is a proposition which commends itself to both sides of the House.

Mr. Palmer: There is a point which arises here. As I understood the 1947 Act, the area boards were obliged to consult the consultative bodies on tariffs and rates. Is it now suggested that if this Amendment is accepted they will have to do it prior to making the change? I think that that is probably the issue, because under the 1947 Act they were obliged to consult.

Mr. Renton: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. As I understand, under the 1947 Act the area boards were obliged to consult the consultative councils as to their general plans and arrangements, and there was no statutory obligation to consult them before fixing the retail tariff. In practice they did consult them, but there was no obligation to do so. If these two Amendments are accepted there will be an obligation to consult the consultative councils not only as to general plans and arrangements but, as the hon. Gentleman has put it, before fixing retail tariffs.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In line 30, after "with" insert:
the Consultative Council established for their area and with".—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 24.—(TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF CENTRAL AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 8, at end insert:
(6) In this and the next following section obligation' includes any such customary obligation as is referred to in subsection (5) of section fifty-four of the principal Act (which relates to certain customary obligations in respect of pensions).

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that this Amendment and the Lords Amendment in page 42, line 46, go together. The second is consequential upon the first.
Under Section 54 (5) of the 1947 Act it was provided that, subject to any pension regulations made by the Minister, any "customary obligations," to use the statutory phrase, which were observed by the former owners of electricity undertakings with regard to pension schemes should be transferred to the electricity boards. That meant that when the various rights, liabilities, duties and obligations of electricity boards were made the subject of transferred provisions, these so-called customary obligations were included with them. It is necessary to make sure that obligations of that kind, inherited from the pre-nationalisation regime by the Central Electricity Authority, should also be transferred respectively to the Generating Board and the Electricity Council.
The Amendments are necessary for that purpose and achieve it by giving a definition of the word "obligation" at the end of Clause 24, the one which deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Central Electricity Authority, and, secondly, by ensuring that any proceedings in respect of a customary obligation which happen to be pending at the time the transfer takes place are continued under the provisions of the Second Schedule. That will be the effect of the second Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: I rise only to say that we on this side of the House are grateful to the Minister for removing anxieties which we entertained and expressed in

Committee on whether customary obligations were adequately covered by the language of the Bill. The Minister has now put that beyond all doubt and I am grateful to him. By his second Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has removed any possible difficulty of construction in relation to existing proceeds. For that, also, I thank him. I think that in this respect the Bill is now satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28.—(MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR RESELLING ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED BY ELECTRICITY BOARDS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 9, leave out "Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899," and insert "Electric Lighting Act, 1882,".

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment in that it corrects an incorrect reference. It should have been not the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, but the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I apologise to the House for the error and hope that it will accept the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO PLACING OF ELECTRIC LINES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 46, at end insert new Clause B:
(1) Every application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899 (in this section referred to as 'section ten (b)')—

(a) shall be in writing;
(b) shall describe by reference to a map the land across which the electric line is proposed to be placed; and
(c) shall state whether all necessary way-leaves have been agreed with owners and occupiers of land proposed to be crossed by the line.
(2) Where such an application made by an Electricity Board states that all necessary way-leaves have not been agreed as mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, the Minister, if he thinks fit, may give notice to the Board that he does not propose to proceed with the application until he is satisfied, with respect to all the land over which wayleaves have not been agreed, that the Board have taken such action on their part as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926 (which enables applications for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) and applications in respect of


wayleaves to be taken concurrently); and where the Minister gives such a notice under this subsection—

(a) the Minister shall not be required to proceed with the application until he is satisfied that the Board have taken all the requisite action in accordance with the notice, and
b) the provisions of subsection (1) of the said section forty-four as to concurrent proceedings shall apply accordingly.
(3) Where an application for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) states that all necessary wayleaves have not been agreed, but the Minister does not proceed concurrently as mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section forty-four, the Minister, if he gives his consent or authorisation under section ten (b), may give it subject to the condition (either in respect of the whole of the line or in respect of any part of it specified in the consent or authorisation) that the work is not to proceed until the Minister gives his permission; and in determining at any time whether to give permission for the work to proceed, either generally or in respect of a part of the line, the Minister—

(a) shall have regard to the extent to which the necessary wayleaves have been agreed by that time, and
(b) in so far as any such wayleaves have not then been agreed in respect of any part of the line, shall take into account any prejudicial effect which, in his opinion, the giving of permission (whether in respect of that part or of any adjacent part of the line) might have on any subsequent proceedings relating to the outstanding wayleaves.
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a more substantial Amendment which introduces a new idea which I want to explain in some detail. This new Clause concerns all applications for overhead electric lines—excluding service lines to the consumer—which are lines for which the Minister's consent has to be obtained under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule of 1899, to which reference is made in the first subsection.
The first subsection specifies the way in which these applications for consent shall be made—they shall be in writing, there shall be a map, and they shall state whether the necessary wayleaves have been agreed with the owners and occupiers of the land which it is proposed the line should cross. The next two subsections are designed to meet a grievance

which has been expressed from time to time. The grievance is to the effect that when the electricity authorities come to ask for a wayleave—to negotiate a way-leave, or, if necessary, to apply for a compulsory wayleave—the owner's position is prejudiced if the Minister has already given planning consent to the line.
It is said that if the Minister has already agreed that the line shall go from A to B, crossing over a certain number of properties, then the position of the owners or occupiers of those properties is prejudiced when it comes to deciding whether the Authority shall have a way-leave to put pylons on the land, or whether a transmission cable shall be allowed to cross that land.
The Clause tries, I think successfully, to meet that objection in two ways. In the first place, in subsection (2) it says that when an application for planning consent to lines of this kind is made to him, the Minister may insist that before he deals with it all the necessary way-leaves shall have been obtained, or, if the wayleaves have not been obtained, that the objections shall have been stated. Under subsection (2) the Minister will be able to say, when an area board applies for planning consent to run a line from A to B, that it must, at the same time, ask him to deal with compulsory way-leaves, if objections have been raised by the people occupying the premises along the route of the line. Therefore, he will be able to deal simultaneously with both planning consents for the line and with any question of compulsory wayleaves which may have to be granted for sections of that line.
It should be an administrative improvement to conflate the two processes and it will be an advantage to the owner or occupier, because his objection will be heard simultaneously with any objections to planning consent to the erection of the lines. I should make it perfectly clear that this procedure can apply only in fairly limited circumstances. Clearly, it would not apply to very long transmission lines, because so many people might be involved.
When one is considering planning consent for a considerable length of line, so many routes may be involved that it may be impossible to say in the planning consent how many people may be asked


to grant wayleaves, or how many applications may be made for wayleaves over individual properties on the possible routes over which the line may travel. This procedure of conflating a wayleave consideration with planning consent will probably apply most of all to short transmission lines from power stations, feeding into the grid, and possibly also to distribution lines of the area boards.
Provision for the longer main transmission lines is made in subsection (3). In those circumstances, if all the necessary wayleaves have not been obtained, the Minister need not say that planning consent must await the wayleaves. He can give planning consent, but not permit a particular section of line to go ahead until he is satisfied that wayleaves can be granted. The effect of that will be that the Minister will be able to insist that approval for the necessary way leaves will proceed some way ahead of the actual construction of the line.
4.30 p.m.
The thought behind that is that people say—with some justice—that if the line is run absolutely up to their properties and they then say, "We do not want the line to run over our property," their position is a little prejudiced by reason of the fact that the line is already on their border and the cost of diverting it will probably be considerable. We want to see that people who object to wayleaves being granted are able to object before the line has advanced to the point at which their objections will be prejudiced.
The purpose of subsection (3) is to enable the Minister to phase the physical progress of the transmission line with the legal process of obtaining the wayleaves, so that the electricity authorities have a few miles in hand, and so that nobody is faced with the position where the line is right up against his land and his objection is thereby prejudiced. That is the purpose of the Clause, which is basically intended to deal with the fairly general feeling that individual owners and occupiers may be prejudiced in their objections to the granting of wayleaves, either because the Minister's planning consent has already been given or because the line has advanced so near to their property that a diversion around it will be too expensive for the authorities to contemplate or for the Minister to feel able to give his permission to it.
I believe that the Clause meets the point which these people have in mind. I do not think that the new procedure will lay any burden upon the authorities or the Department which will hinder or slow down the progress or development of these overhead lines.

Mr. Palmer: We could hardly complain about the Clause in view of the fact that its principle at least was suggested by a Member of this party in the other place. It seems generally sensible and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it certainly goes quite a long way towards meeting a substantial grievance on the part of property owners when electricity authorities propose to extend their lines. We therefore support the Clause in general.
But I would like to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman. Does this mean that the Minister or his representatives are now open to be questioned in this House on every such proposal, where their responsibility is involved? It may be that I should not put that question to the right hon. Gentleman, but he may have some views upon it. There is also one further point. We are all in favour of greater protection being given to owners of property, in the interests of amenity—and that point of view has been widely expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place but we now run the risk of the pendulum swinging a little too far in the other direction. We must be a little careful about the matter.
When we discussed the question in Committee upstairs, where the question of consent to electricity works was first raised, I understood that it was the intention—I give the Government credit for it to speed up power station and transmission line projects. It may be that the net effect of these changes will be rather in the opposite direction, and will slow these projects down. I just put that thought to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is satisfied on the point.
Only the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, drawing attention to the loss of electricity supply in many parts of the country due to the recent thunderstorms and lightening disturbances. The point


which my hon. Friend very reasonably made was that the electricity authorities should provide more alternative sources of supply. If the authorities are to do that kind of thing, and extend their lines to give a greater reliability of supply, it is not much good having a procedure which is so cumbersome and is likely to stand in the way of their doing something on these lines.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: We must be careful before we accept this proposal, despite the fact that it was moved by a member of my party in another place. I say that particularly in view of the fact that there is a further Amendment on the Notice Paper which I shall vote against later on, namely, the new Clause C.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has said, the Clause now under discussion changes the whole question of the Minister's responsibility. As I see it, as a result of the insertion of the Clause it will be quite in order for the Minister to be questioned here, and for the Minister of Power to be questioned in another place, in connection with every single wayleave to which objection is taken and to which hon. Members may be referred by their constituents. I do not think that we can run an industry of this character if that procedure is followed.
Unless assurances are given by the Minister in this respect, in view of the necessity for a practical and efficient working of the electricity supply I shall certainly vote against the Clause. I am reinforced in my view by the foolish and inane later Clause to which I have already referred, and which it would be out of order to discuss now. We must have assurances from the Minister before we accept the Clause.

Mr. Maudling: Two very important points have been raised by hon. Members opposite. First, I do not think that the Clause will make any difference to the degree to which the decisions of the Minister are open to question in this House or in another place. Application already has to be made to the Minister under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule to the 1899 Act, and the Clause in no way affects the authority and responsibility of the Minister for giving or withholding

planning consent. The Clause makes him no more and no less accountable to this House than he was under the 1899 Act. The Clause, in effect, is concerned not with the decisions which the Minister makes but the procedure adopted before he makes those decisions, and the circumstances in which he makes them.

Mr. Hobson: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but the position is not quite so simple. In view of what he says, if we are not satisfied with the ways and means in which these wayleaves have been asked for, and our constituents complain to us about them, in view of the Minister's statement at the Box just now it will be quite in order for us to question him. Therefore, the logic of my argument follows, namely, that we shall be able to raise the question of every single objection to a wayleave that is put forward.

Mr. Maudling: If that will be true in the future it was equally true of the past. My point is that the Minister has to decide whether to grant these wayleaves in every case in which his consent has to be asked, and if he were subject to challenge in Parliament in the past over his decision in regard to any wayleave he will be no more and no less responsible to Parliament in future. The Clause does not affect the liability of ministerial decisions being challenged in this House.
My own impression—speaking rather off the cuff—is that if the Minister gives a planning decision he is always liable to be questioned in this House as to why he made that decision. That has always been so, I would have thought, and it is probably only a matter of practice that he has not so been asked. But there is nothing in the Clause which will make Ministers' decisions upon wayleave procedure any more subject to challenge in this House in the future than they were in the past.
I very much share the fears of both hon. Members opposite about the possible delay. I am very worried about this. Half way through the Committee proceedings we started trying to speed up the procedure, and everyone was in favour of that in principle. Having produced some ideas, however, we found that no one liked the ideas. It is rather like Government economy; everyone is


in favour of economy in general, but nobody likes it in particular. In the Bill as it left this House we introduced certain improvements to speed up the procedure. Too often however, people think that this matter is very simple, and that we can have electricity supplies without the erection of power stations and of transmission lines. It is bunkum to think that. It is an attitude which colours the minds of too many people.
Much of the opposition to the erection of power stations and transmission lines comes from people who already have an electricity supply. They should remember that if we are to be able to supply electricity to every part of the country, we must be able to produce it and carry it. I am, therefore, grateful to both hon. Members for underlining what should be underlined more often, namely, that although we are anxious to preserve the amenities of this island—and I know how anxious and how sensible the electricity authorities are in this matter—we cannot have electricity distributed without pylons and transmission lines. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing that out.
With that background, and having looked at the proposed new Clause, I am satisfied that it will not slow down procedures. I hope that, in practice, it may speed them up a little. By putting together two stages, planning consent and the granting of wayleaves, subsection (2) may enable us to speed up a little. The Clause is designed to meet a legitimate cause of grievance by owners and occupiers of property. After some consideration, I am satisfied that it will not hold up the development of the electricity supply system. For those reasons, I hope that the House will be prepared to agree to the Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CON STRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF GENERATING STATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 46, after the Amendment last inserted to insert new Clause C:

(1) Where under section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909 (which relates to the construction or extension of generating stations), notice, and an opportunity of stating objections, are required to be given to the local authority of the district in which the land in question is situated, the like requirements as to notice, and as to an opportunity of stating objections, shall apply in relation to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
(2) An application for the consent of the Minister or of the Secretary of State under the said section two shall be in writing, and shall describe by reference to a map the land in relation to which the consent is required.
(3) In this and the next following section 'local planning authority', in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a fairly small Amendment which will have no great practical effect. It gives statutory authority to an accepted practice. Where application is made for the construction or extension of a generating station under the Act of 1909 it provides that notice shall be given, not only to the local authority, but to the local planning authority. That will bring the provision for generating stations into line with the provisions for transmission lines which are, I believe, set out in the Act of 1919. At any rate, it has always been the practice, where a generating station is to be built or extended, to let the local planning authority know as well as the local authority. The Clause will give statutory authority to a general and sensible practice.

Sir F. Soskice: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a sensible proposal. It gives statutory sanction to a practice which has been carried on for some considerable time. It requires consultation with the local planning authority. That seems to us eminently sensible and does not effect any great change.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES.)

Lards Amendment: In page 29, line 46, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause D:


"(1) Where an application has been made to the Minister for his consent or authorisation under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, or for his consent under section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, and the local planning authority after giving public notice, considering any objection that may be made and consulting with the local authorities, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other appropriate national and local bodies, have notified the Minister that there are objections by the planning authority or by persons aggrieved by the application or by the local authorities or bodies consulted and that those objections have not been withdrawn, the Minister (either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections) shall cause a public inquiry to be held, and, before determining whether to give his consent or authorisation, shall consider the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry:


Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Minister proposes to accede to the application subject to such modifications or conditions as will give effect to the objection of the local planning authority.


(2) Where in accordance with the preceding subsection a public inquiry is to be held in respect of an application by an Electricity Board, the Minister shall inform the Board accordingly; and the Board shall in two successive weeks publish a notice stating—



a) the fact that the application has been made, and the purpose thereof, together with a description of the land to which it relates;


(b) a place in the locality where a copy of the application, and of the map referred to therein, can be inspected; and


(c) the place, date and time of the public inquiry.


(3) A notice under the last preceding subsection shall be published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land in question is situated, or circulating respectively in the several localities in which different parts of that land are situated, as the Board publishing the notice may consider appropriate.


(4) If it appears to the Minister that, in addition to the publication of a notice in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) of this section, further notification of the public inquiry should be given (either by the service of notices, or by advertisement, or in any other way) in order to secure that the information specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of this section is sufficiently made known to persons in the locality, the Minister may direct the Board to take such further steps for that purpose as may be specified in the direction.


(5) Where in accordance with this section a public inquiry is to be held in respect of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, and (whether in pursuance of subsection (2) of section (Further provisions as to placing of electric lines) of this Act or otherwise) the Minister is proceeding concurrently as mentioned in subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, the public inquiry shall extend to all the matters arising in those concurrent proceedings, and any notice of the inquiry (in addition to any other matters required to be stated therein) shall indicate the extent of the inquiry accordingly.


(6) In the case of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of the said section ten, where the application relates to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities.—


(a) in so far as any of those local planning authorities do not object to the application, no public inquiry need (unless the Minister otherwise directs) be held in respect of the application in so far as it relates to land in the area of that local planning authority;

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (1), line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "not" in line 11, and to insert:
have notified the Minister that they object to the application, and that objection of the local planning authority has".
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if all the Amendments to the proposed Lords Amendments were taken together. That would include the proposed new Second Schedule, which is described as a "consequential Amendment to the Bill".
This matter is a little complicated. I will try to explain it, in the hope that I shall explain it also to myself in the process. The proposed Lords Amendment arises from an undertaking given by my noble Friend that where the local planning authority maintained an objection either to the building or the extension of a power station, or to the provision of an overhead line, my noble Friend would cause a public inquiry to be held. That is the principal purpose of the proposed new Clause D. It is backed by a series of subsidiary provisions which are concerned with the notice that shall be given, where notices shall be placed, further publicity, if the Minister should re

quire it, and machinery designed to carry out the primary purpose.
4.45 p.m.
I believe it was also felt that local planning authorities, excellent as they are, are primarily local and therefore have a limited purview of these matters. It was put to us that there might he objections on planning grounds to power stations or transmission lines which would not necessarily come within the field of operation of planning authorities and that provision should therefore be made for the consideration of objections, not only from the local planning authority, but from any other body, for example, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. In those circumstances, a public inquiry should be held at the instance of the Minister. As the result, the proposed new Clause D now provides for a public inquiry not only if the local planning authority should object, but if that authority should inform the Minister that other persons are aggrieved by the application. The effect would be that if any two people objected to any particular application the Minister would be bound to hold a public inquiry.
There are a number of reasons why the Government do not feel that the proposed new Clause is acceptable. The


Minister has to deal with about 9,000 or 10,000 applications for overhead lines annually, and if we had to have a public inquiry any time two people objected to one of these applications, the effect on the power programme would be insupportable.
The effect of the Amendment which I have moved to the proposed Lords Amendment would be that where application has been made to the Minister, and the local planning authority has informed the Minister that it objects to the application and its objection has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall hold a public inquiry. Subsection (1) would say that where the local planning authority objects, there shall be a public inquiry. This is in accordance with the undertaking given by my noble Friend. I hope that that proposal will commend itself to the House. If the planning authority maintained an objection, there would be a very strong case for a public inquiry.
We then endeavour to meet the further point, that the local planning authority may not be the only people with a reasonable objection and that the Minister should be able and obliged to listen to objections from other quarters. The purpose of subsection (2) as amended would roughly be that, in the case of high voltage lines, which are to be defined as lines for conveying electricity at or above 132,000 volts, if anyone other than the local planning authority has an objection to make he will send the objection to the local planning authority and simultaneously to the Minister. Then the Minister will have the whole picture of the objections to the line and will be able, if he thinks it right, to hold a public inquiry in regard to objections from sources other than the local planning authority.
This has happened in other cases, one of which was the Bradwell Power Station. No objection was raised locally, but the Minister thought it right to have a public inquiry because of the importance of the project. If the local planning authority says that there are other substantial objectors, like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Minister will have discretion to order a public inquiry. He will not be compelled to do so unless he thinks that the substance of the objections is such as to make that the right course to pursue.
This is a very tangled problem, and the Amendments which I am proposing to the Amendment from another place are, I regret to say, complicated, but I have endeavoured to explain to the House the main purpose. I think that what underlies the whole provision is the feeling that, first of all, if the local planning authority objects, there should be a public inquiry; secondly, we cannot assume that because the local planning authority has no objection, there are no other objections from other sources which are worthy of a public inquiry; and that, in the case of objections other than from the local planning authority, it must be for the Minister—it cannot be for anyone else—to decide in his discretion whether these other objections should be dealt with by private hearing or whether they are adequate to merit the full machinery of a public inquiry on the lines set out in the subsequent subsections of the new Clause.
I hope very much that our Amendments will commend themselves to the House. I think the point raised in another place is a valid one, and represents a feeling which is fairly widespread but, as I explained earlier, I also feel very strongly that we must not do anything which will, in fact, impede or hold up the expansion of the electricity supply industry. I think that by our proposed Amendments to the new Clause we have, with some difficulty and with some ingenuity on the part of the Parliamentary draftsmen, succeeded in obtaining the best of both worlds.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I think this is a step in the right direction, because the original Amendment would have been thoroughly impracticable. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would have meant having to consult the Society for the Preservation of Rural England before erecting a power station in Scotland, and I do not know what the Secretary of State for Scotland would think about that. The whole thing would have been thoroughly impracticable, and would have impeded the programme.
I should like to ask one question. Why has it been found necessary, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to have a datum line for high voltage lines of 132,000 volts?

Mr. Maudling: The answer is that we felt that it was quite impossible to apply this procedure to every application for an overhead line. The thing that causes most controversy and discontent to people is the large overhead lines carried on big pylons, and the datum line of 132,000 volts is intended to include the big pylons, hut to exclude the normal overhead distribution lines.

Sir F. Soskice: I think the Minister has found what is a reasonable compromise in order to allay a number of conflicting anxieties. The Clause started out with a provision that there should be an inquiry when there was an objection by the planning authority. When that was examined, it was thought that possibly the planning authority might take too narrow and sectarian a view in some sets of circumstances.
That quite naturally gave rise to the suggestion that the Clause should be considerably enlarged and that the Minister should be required to hold an inquiry in the event of objections from other sources which, it was thought, might take a more general view of the circumstances. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Clause in the form in which it left another place would have put very serious obstacles in the way of the direct implementation of large-scale schemes. It was under these circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers set to work to try to find a middle way between these opposing points of view.
The course which he has adopted in order to achieve that objective seems to us on this side of the House to be wholly reasonable. What he has said, in effect, is that there must be an inquiry when there is an objection by a planning authority, and that there should be an inquiry when an objection is voiced from other quarters. At any rate, in the case of these very high voltage cables, it seems to us that, faced with that difficult situation, and trying to meet the point of view of those who wished objections to be fully aired and fully considered and those who felt more strongly the practical need for pressing on with urgent programmes, that the right hon. Gentleman has found a sensible middle way and a reasonable compromise, which I hope, when it is considered, will seem to be satisfactory to all those who have felt very much concern in this matter.
Speaking for myself, I would certainly hope that the House would agree with the Paymaster-General in the changes which he proposes, which certainly seem to me to meet the situation, and I therefore hope 'hat the House will agree to them.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments to the Lords Amendment made: In subsection (1), at end insert:
(2) In relation to applications for consent under section two of the Electric Lighting Act. 1909, and to applications for consent or authorisation under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899 in respect of the placing of high voltage lines, the Minister shall make provision by regulations for securing—

(a) that (in addition to any notice required to be given under section two of the said Act of 1909) notice of every such application shall be published in such manner as may he specified in the regulations;
(b) that (in addition to any notice required to be given under the said section two, and to the publication of notices in accordance with the preceding paragraph) notice of any such application shall, where the Minister so directs, be served upon much persons as may he specified in the directions;
(c) that every notice published or served in pursuance of the regulations shall state the time within which, and the manner in which, objections to the application can be made by persons other than those to whom (under the said section two, or under section twenty-one of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919) an opportunity of being heard or of stating objections is required to be given, and that the time so stated shall not be less than such minimum period as may be specified in the regulations; and
(d) that, in so far as any such notice requires objections to be sent to any person other than the Minister, copies of the objections shall be sent to the Minister by that person:
Provided that, in relation to applications for consent tinder the said section two to the extension of generating stations, any regulations made under this subsection may include provision for enabling the Minister to give directions dispensing with the requirements of the regulations, in cases where in accordance with that section the Minister dispenses with the giving of notices thereunder.
(3) Where, in the case of any such application as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection,—

(a) the Minister is not required by virtue of subscetion (1) of this section to cause a public inquiry to be held, but
(b) objections or copies of objections have been sent to the Minister in pursuance of regulations made under the last preceding subsection,
the Minister shall consider those objections, together with all other material considerations, with a view to determining whether a public inquiry should be held with respect to the application, and, if he thinks it appropriate to


do so, shall cause a public inquiry to be held, either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections to the application.
In subsection (2), line 1, leave out "the preceding subsection" and insert:
any of the preceding provisions of this section".
Leave out subsections (6) and (7), and insert:
(6) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to public inquiries) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section.
Subsection (8), line 6, after "(1)" insert "or subsection (3)".
Subsection (8), at end add:
(9) In this section "high voltage line" means an electric line for conveying or transmitting electricity at or above a voltage of one hundred and thirty-two thousand.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to

Consequential Amendment made to the Bill: In page 38, line 44, at the end insert the following Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES

1. In the case of an application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899, where in accordance with any of the provisions of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act a public inquiry is to be held, and the application relates to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities,—
(a) the application shall not be the subject of a public inquiry in so far as it relates to land in the area of a local planning authority who have not notified the Minister that they object to the application, unless the Minister otherwise directs having regard to objections by other persons of which he has notice;
(b) in so far as the application is to be the subject of a public inquiry in relation to land in the areas of two or more local planning authorities, the Minister may direct that separate public inquiries shall be held in the area of each of those authorities;
and, where the Minister gives any such directions, the provisions of the said section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) shall apply with the necessary modifications:

Provided that for the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph a local planning authority who have notified the Minister that they object to the application shall be treated as not having done so if the Minister proposes 'to accede to the application subject to such

modifications or conditions as will give effect to the objection

2. Subsection (2) of section sixty-six of the principal Act (which relates to inquiries under that Act) shall apply in relation to inquiries held in pursuance of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act as it applies in relation to inquiries held in pursuance of the said section sixty-six.

3. For the purposes of section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act the Minister may make regulations limiting the time within which notification of objections may be made to the Minister by local planning authorities, and providing that objections which are not notified within the time so limited may be disregarded for those purposes.

4. Any power to make regulations under section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act, or under this Schedule, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and different provision may be made by any such regulations in relation to different classes of applications or otherwise in relation to different classes of cases.

5. Where any regulations made under section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act, or under this Schedule, are for the time being in force, any rules made under section thirty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in so far as they relate to applications to which the regulations apply, shall have effect subject to those regulations.

6. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.

7. In this Schedule "local planning authority" has the same meaning as in section (Special provisions as to public inquiries) of this Act.—[Mr. Maudling.]

New Clause E.—(PRESERVATION OF AMENITY.)

Lords Amendment: In line 26, at end insert new Clause E:
In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the functions of the Generating Board or of any of the Area Boards (including any such general programme as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section seven of this Act, the Board in question, the Electricity Council and the Minister, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall each take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
5.0 p.m.
During the discussions in another place their Lordships showed themselves to have a passionate interest in beauty and physiography and especially flora and, of course, fauna. [Laughter] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are laughing. There is no question of three guineas in this. The new Clause is a very valuable addition by their Lordships and I commend it to the House.
The Clause is fairly wide in its application. It states that not only when formulating proposals, but when considering proposals, the electricity boards, the Electricity Council and the Minister shall have regard to the various matters which are specified. Those matters cover a wide range of subjects—the preservation of natural beauty:
… the conserving of flora, fauna and ecological or physiographical features of special interest …
In regard to geological features, for example, that means that if there were known to be or thought to be a certain bed of interesting fossils and excavations had to be made, then those fossils could not be disturbed until the matter had been carefully considered. Also, buildings and other objects of architectural or historical interest have to be protected. I think it might be in order for me to point out that this is in line with a similar provision which was made in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill the other day. We are anxious to protect our irreplaceable national heritage. whether of ancient things or of beautiful ones.
Considering the way in which this very broad obligation is likely to work out in practice, I would point out that, first and foremost, the various electricity boards would have to bear these factors in mind when considering their duty under Clause 7 (4) to produce a general programme of development for consideration by the Minister. Then the Electricity Council and, in turn, the Minister would also have to bear these factors in mind when considering their general programme. But the obligation would apply to matters of a more particularised kind. For example, when proposals are being formulated for a new power station and an application is being made by the Generating Board to the Minister for consent, both the Board and the Minister will have to bear these proposals in mind.
I hope that the House will not think that this is imposing upon the Generating Board a big new obligation which is not already borne voluntarily by the Central Electricity Authority. I have been looking closely into these procedures lately, and I find that the Central Electricity Authority goes into these matters with very great care. I think it would be a matter of public assurance that these excellent practices should be recognised by Parliament and written into this Bill while we have the opportunity to do it. I feel that their Lordships have done a public service by drawing attention to these matters and giving us the opportunity to ensure that they become part of the law of the land.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am against the proposed new Clause. It is far too restrictive. I do not see any reason for its insertion. Indeed, we have already been told that it covers precisely what the electricity boards already do. It may appear from that that I put myself in a contradictory position when I say that I am against the inclusion of the Clause, but there is all the difference in the world between having a common-sense and practical approach to the problem—which I am sure those connected with the Generating Board have—and having this very closely drawn Clause inserted into an Act of Parliament.
What is meant by "fauna"? Can it be stated where we shall site atomic power stations without affecting some fauna, such as deer in Scotland, or rabbits? Does "fauna" cover badgers? It is all a question of definition. The whole thing is stupid. Provision has already been made for siting projected atomic power stations. The proposal to have one at Bradwell raised a flurry about whether or not a Georgian mansion was an ancient building. The same sort of thing will happen all over the country.
I do not see why the House, to please another place, should insert a Clause containing such categorical language when we have got on very well in the past without one. I have known the industry for many years and I have never heard of the building of a power station leading to the destruction of fauna and flora or to the pulling down of historic monuments. I cannot understand the readiness of any Government to have a Clause of this character, for I am sure it will be the subject of objections and a tremendous number of legal actions. After all,


the British people have a certain tradition, and we are not likely readily to destroy any of our heritage. I do not think the Clause is necessary. I would on no account vote for it, because I think it is just plain stupid.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). If we add such a Clause to the Bill, we may look forward to lawyers' field days, because we shall be putting into the Bill many words with vague definitions. We are, in fact, calling upon the boards to carry out obligations which they have voluntarily accepted over a number of years. Unless we are to have a long interpretation Clause dealing with the points covered by the new Clause, I feel that we should do well not to accept it.

Mr. Palmer: Many of us understand and sympathise with the doubts concerning difficulties in the operation of the Clause which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that on both sides in this House and in another place there has been a strong expression of feeling that when our power station programme is extended in the future—we are to have a tremendous extension—it is the business of all the authorities concerned, including the boards, to take account of amenity considerations. I believe that I speak for the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, for that reason, we feel that the Clause should be given general support.
The difficulty seems to be on the aesthetic side. What is to be the standard of taste in these matters, and how is it to be determined? Will the electricity boards appoint flora and fauna officers?

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Why not?

Mr. Palmer: Unkind critics of the boards—I am sure without any warrant—have occasionally talked about a "bereavement officer," quite a mythical figure. If, in addition, there is to be a "flora and fauna officer," there would be scope for more jokes for the comedians on the music hall stage.
There are such difficulties, but the real problem is to determine what we really
mean by the natural beauty of the countryside. It so happened that my memory from reading Macaulay's History of England took me to Volume I. Macaulay is not a much quoted historian these days. He is a Whig historian, but none the worse for that, if I may say so as a good Socialist. I remembered words which I found in page 280, where he says:
Under the benignant influence of peace and liberty, science has flourished, and has been applied to practical purposes on a scale never before known. The consequence is that a change to which the history of the old world furnishes no parallel has taken place in our country. Could the England of 1685"—
and Macaulay was writing in the early years of the nineteenth century—
be, by some magical process, set before our eyes, we should not know one landscape in a hundred or one building in ten thousand. The country gentleman would not recognise his own fields. The inhabitant of the town would not recognise his own street. Everything has been changed, but the great features of nature, and a few massive and durable works of human art. We might find out Snowdon and Windermere, the Chedder Cliffs and Beachy Head. We might find out here and there a Norman minster or a castle which witnessed the wars of the Roses. But, with such rare exceptions, everything would be strange to us.
That is my difficulty when noble Lords and others talk about the natural beauties of the countryside. I am all in favour of protecting beauty on every occasion, but my difficulty is to define natural beauty.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be competent for me to submit a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Gordon Touche): Mr. Speaker would have to select it.

Mr. Hobson: That means that it would be impossible for any hon. Member who objects to this Amendment to move a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Renton: I understand that the Lords Amendments were ordered to be printed on 6th June. They were available, if I remember correctly, before we reassembled following the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hobson: That may be so, but I submit that it is irrelevant. It is quite competent during the Committee stage of a Bill to submit manuscript Amendments, subject to the discretion of the


Chairman of the Committee, and I see no reason why the procedure in this House should be any different in this respect, particularly in view of the fact that these Amendments come from another place. Hon. Members have a lot of other things to do and if notice has not been taken of this it only means that hon. Members have had their minds devoted to day-to-day problems. I personally am not prepared to ponder night after night upon foolish Amendments of this character and I should like to know whether it be possible to move a manuscript Amendment to delete the most objectionable features of this Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be possible to move an Amendment, but I cannot select it.

Sir Thomas Moore: I feel it necessary to support the Minister in this matter. We are all agreed that we have the loveliest country in the world, especially in good weather. We also have some of the noblest and most distinguished buildings and some perfect gems of rural architecture in our English villages. I am not referring so much to Scottish villages. A few years ago this lovely countryside was disfigured by ribbon development. Fortunately, owing to the quick and successful action of the then Conservative Government, this horror was largely stopped.
Now we are being subjected to a new menace. Pylons of strange design, and erections of a Heath Robinson character, are going up all over the countryside, destroying the skyline—

Mr, C. R. Hobson: The hon. Member is making a case for removing the Clause.

Sir T. Moore: —destroying the vista and practically everything which gives happiness and satisfaction to the eye. On this occasion I think that their Lordships have shown a sensitiveness to beauty and to those natural features mentioned in the Clause. We should welcome this Amendment. I, for one, am glad to support it.

5.15 p.m

Mr. Renton: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to reassure those hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that this proposed Clause might result in a lawyers' paradise. I

hope that I can assure him that is not so. All that requires to be done by the various parties concerned, the Electricity Council, the boards and the Minister, is to take into account these various things and to consider them having regard to
… the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest …
It is not every sparrow which has to be protected. It is not every stone. It is when these features are of special interest that they have to be taken into account. There is no question of this becoming an overriding factor which will decide every case. I hope that my attempt at clarification will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). He made the point that this Amendment is unnecessary because what the Clause proposes is already being done. It is already being done by the Central Electricity Authority, but we must remember that a new public authority is being created, the Generating Board.
The Electricity Council is being set up with new responsibilities and I think it right that while we are making this general change in the structure of the industry we should remind those accountable for the future administration of the industry and the making of these decisions of their responsibilities. It is right to bear in mind the public anxiety which has been expressed, although it has sometimes been misplaced. I think that we should write these responsibilities into this Bill.
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) expressed the hope—if I may put it this way, paraphrasing the words of the hon. Gentleman—that there would not be a "flora and fauna officer"—

Mr. C. R. Hobson: There is plenty of time yet; there are plenty of seats vacant in the Empire.

Mr. Renton: —and that there would not be an "ancient buildings officer". Judging front the experience of the Central Electricity Authority, I am sure that the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman may be set at rest. Consultation already takes place with the Nature Conservancy where anything affecting flora and fauna is concerned, and with the National Parks Commission where areas designated as being of special beauty are concerned.

Mr. Palmer: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to take too seriously what I said. The point I was anxious to make was the difficulty of defining these things. They depend so much on standards of taste, and so on. That was the point I was making; I was not serious in the other part of my speech.

Mr. Renton: I am obliged to the hon. Member and will not make heavy weather of it, but it is right to point out that there are already procedures for consultations on these matters. The Ministry of Works comes into this as well and, as has been stated by my noble Friend in another place, very eminent architects are consulted by the Central Electricity Authority, also.
May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) for his support? I hope that now the House might feel disposed to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend could convince me that if, in fact, this Clause were not complied with there is an authority which can make certain that it is complied with?

Mr. Renton: That comes back to a very great extent to the responsibility of the Minister in this matter. He is obliged to take these matters into account when exercising his powers and duties under the Act. There is no question of an appeal of any kind except to the Minister, but I think that one must realise that this has got to be regarded in the light of the various procedures under this Measure and previous statutes. If one regards it in the light of those procedures, one finds that the whole thing is channelled upwards to the Minister and he is responsible to Parliament That is the sanction which underlies the working of this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule.— (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 33, after "relating" insert:
to employed persons generally or

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient to consider all the Lords Amendments to page 39 together. They are drafting Amendments.
The Second Schedule, which is one of transitional provisions, deals with the agreements already in effect dealing with employed persons. It is clear that, as drafted at present, it refers to:
Any such agreement relating to any class of employed persons"—
That is line 33 of the Schedule as it stands, but the Schedule does not refer to agreements relating to employed persons as a whole, and as there are such agreements, that is a defect in the drafting.
The last two Amendments proposed, to line 41 and line 43, are necessary to ensure that in interpreting the existing agreements in the new circumstances appropriate reference should be made both to the Electricity Council and the Generating Board.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments made: In line 35, after "relation" insert:
to employed persons generally or
In line 36, leave out "persons" and insert:
employed persons, as the case may be,
In line 41, leave out "references in the agreement" and insert:
in the provisions of the agreement, references (however expressed)
In line 43, at end insert:
or to the Generating Board or to both of them, as the case may require."—[Mr. Maud-ling.]
Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 46, at end insert:
(3) In this paragraph "obligation" has the same meaning as in section twenty-four of this Act.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was considered when we were considering the Amendment to page 22, line 8, and is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 52, at end insert:

Applications for consent or authorization made before vesting date
14. The following provisions of this Act, that is to say,—

(a) sections (Further provisions as to placing of electric lines), (Provisions as to


construction or extension of generating stations) and (Special provisions as to public inquiries), and
(b) so much of the Third Schedule to this Act as amends section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall not have effect in relation to the giving of any consent or authorisation for which application was made before the passing of this Act, or is made thereafter but before the vesting date.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a consequential Amendment. This afternoon we have agreed to three new Clauses dealing with the placing of electric lines, construction or extension of generating stations and special provisions as to public inquiries. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that these new provisions do not take effect until vesting date under the Act. It will be generally agreed that to introduce new machinery into inquiries or negotiations or decisions at present in course of being taken would be a mistake. It would be to the convenience of all concerned to introduce the new provisions with the vesting date of the Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(AMENDMENT AND ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 43, leave out "(4)".

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment which makes various adaptations and amendments, including some to the Electricity Act, 1947. Section 3 (4) of that Act disqualifies Members of Parliament from being members of the Central Electricity Authority or its area boards. The House of Commons Disqualification Act has recently repealed Section 3 (4) of the Electricity Act, 1947. It is, therefore, right that we should also repeal it here.
However, in this connection I should invite the attention of hon. Members to page 50 of the Bill as it went to the House of Lords on 9th April, in which we find that the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, is also amended, and amended in such a way as to substitute for "the Central Authority" "the Central Electricity Generating Board" and the Electricity Council". So we

now arrive at the position at which it will be impossible for Members of this House to be members of the Electricity Council or any of its electricity boards.

Sir F. Soskice: I hope that this is an instance in which the effect of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, will be salutary in clearing up various ambiguities in the law relating to disqualification with which that Act set out to deal. I am a little dismayed, however, to find that, while the provision we seek to remove is rendered unnecessary because of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, the Bill itself amends that Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to remove from the Bill, or has already removed, the provision in which it amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I do not think he told the House that, but presumably he has done so.

Mr. Renton: I speak again by leave of the House. The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, is amended in the Third Schedule and on page 50 of the Bill. I think it was right for the House of Commons Disqualification Act to be passed irrespective of what might be enacted by Parliament in this Bill, which had not been enacted by the time that Act was passed, and for the Bill, now it is to be passed, to amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I understand that the usual procedure which pertains when we have two Bills going through the House in one Session and to some very minor extent they overlap has, in fact, been followed in this case. Nothing unusual is being done, but the whole thing is being tidied up in this way.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has raised a very important point. It is very difficult for laymen to follow these legal arguments between counsel across the Floor of the House. The point about which I am concerned and on which I should like some elucidation, either from my right hon. and learned Friend or from the Minister, is whether this means that a consequential alteration will have to be made to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Will that Act have to be amended?

Mr. Renton: I do not wish to pursue the point, but I am being pressed about it and, with the leave of the House, I wish to help. The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, has already received the Royal Assent, and when this Bill receives the Royal Assent that Act will be amended by the words on page 50 at the end of the Third Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 28. at end insert:


Section 21
In subsection (3), for the words "Central Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Electricity Council".


Section 33
In subsection (4), for the words "Central Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Electricity Council".

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a tidying up Amendment which deals with two matters which, I can assure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson), were considered in Committee. The two Sections of the principal Act which we propose to amend are Sections 21 and 33. Section 21 appointed stockholders' representatives at the time of nationalisation to represent stockholders entitled to compensation, and provided that they should be paid by the Crown and that the money should be recovered from the Central Authority. It appears to be true, although rather surprising, that all possible claims under the nationalisation Act have not yet been exhausted, and it is possible that further money will have to be provided by the Crown to meet the expenses of stockholders' representatives. This money will clearly have to be reimbursed to the Crown in the future by the Electricity Council, which will be in existence after the vesting date in the Bill, when the Central Authority has ceased to exist.
Section 33 is similar in that subsection (4) provides for the payment of allowances, pay and expenses to the Electricity Arbitration Tribunal which was set up under the nationalisation Act to determine disputes arising from the nationalisation of undertakings. I understand that some matters are still outstanding between the Central Authority

and the local authorities for which arbitration may be necessary, and if the arbitration tribunal is to be reconvened, which is possible, the Electricity Council will be the proper body to reimburse the Minister for the tribunal's expenses, since the Central Authority will not be in a position to do so after the passage of the Bill.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: This is a shocking business. On two occasions this afternoon privileges of the Commons have been broken by another place. I cannot understand why Government spokesmen in the other place are so badly briefed, or are not informed by those responsible for informing them that the Money Resolution is not adequate—because I take it from the Minister's statement that this is precisely what is meant here. I hope that we shall not have many repetitions of this sort of thing.
It is true that one is present when Lords Amendments are being considered only if one is particularly interested in the Measure; that is the general way in which hon. Members conduct themselves. Nevertheless, I speak with over twelve years' membership of the House, and I think this is the only occasion which I can remember on which the privileges of the Commons have been broken by the Lords twice in one series of Amendments. I am not blaming them, for they are trying to get their own way, but I am complaining somewhat bitterly that there is not sufficient co-ordination between the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members opposite in pointing out that there is not enough money in the Money Resolution to cover the point under consideration.
If certain concessions are to be made, we shall have Bills put up to a sort of Dutch auction and the highest bidder will get what he wants. Are we to have a state of affairs on the Budget in which, when he has a surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "All right boys. I shall be distributing largesse to the tune of £50 million"?
This is a case in which the Money Resolution has not been adequate. I think it points to very bad co-ordination, and I make my protest.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 13, at end insert:
Third Schedule In paragraph 5 of Part I, and in paragraph 2, and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5, of Part II, for the words 'Central Authority', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'Electricity Council'; and in subparagraph (2) of paragraphs 5 of Part II, the words by the Central Authority' shall be omitted, and after the words in respect of any securities' there shall be inserted the words whether by the Central Authority or by the Electricity Council'.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Third Schedule of the principal Act, with which we are concerned here, deals with the issue of compensation stock at nationalisation. Once again, rather surprisingly, it is true that there is still a small amount of compensation stock which has not been allocated, the reason being that people entitled to it have not been identified. Adaptations are required in the Schedule to transfer to the Electricity Council certain functions of the Central Authority about compensation stock. This is in line with what has already been decided in principle by the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 40, at end insert:

The Electric Lighting Act, 1882

In the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with the said Act of 1882 by virtue of section twelve thereof, the words from "or shall supply any other person" to the words "by the Undertakers", and the words "or such supply furnished", shall be omitted.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, if it is convenient, that we should take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 43. The two go together.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is this again a breach of privilege?

Mr. Renton: These two Amendments are consequential to Clause 28 (5) of the Bill, which deals with the fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity, and the need for the Amendments arises in this way: Section 18 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 provides penalties for

misusing gas supplied by gas undertakings. That Section of the 1847 Act was applied to the misuse of electricity by Section 12 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, but with the adaptations that "gas" meant "electricity" and that "gas pipe" meant "electric lines". The two Acts between them are among the legislative fossils with which we have to contend from time to time, but of which we have to take notice because, although they seem to be fossils, they are still alive.
The 1882 Act, as read with the 1847 Act, made it illegal to resell electricity, whereas in the Bill we are making it legal to resell electricity subject to certain conditions. We therefore have to remove the legislative provisions which make it illegal to do so.
The first of these Amendments, to line 40, deletes the obsolete words from Section 18 of the 1847 Act and the second Amendment, in line 43, which can be understood only by referring to the Bill as well as to the Lords Amendments, if I may respectfully say so, deletes the now superfluous words from the Appendix to the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I should point out that we have a most extraordinary legislative position in that provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act,1847, as amended and amplified by the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, are embodied in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act. 1899, so that we have double legislation.
Therefore, by these Amendments we have to correct the same piece of legislation, which occurs in two different places, and to do it twice. I have been into this, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the object has been achieved.

Sir F. Soskice: I rise only to express the grateful thanks of, I think, hon. Members on both sides, to the Minister for his fascinating and enthralling discourse. What I cannot understand is how the profound truths that he has enunciated managed to escape the vigilance of all of us during the Committee stage. I think that we should all come forward in a white sheet and apologise.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In page 48, line 43, at end insert:
and, in the Appendix, the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, therein set out shall be modified in accordance with the last preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule."—[Mr. Renton.]

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 46, at end insert:
after the words 'district in which the land is situate' there shall be inserted the words 'to the local planning authority (within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947) in whose area that land is situate', and after the words 'such local authority' there shall be inserted the words 'local planning authority'.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took that in line 48.
These two Amendments are consequential on the adoption of the new Clause dealing with the construction or extension of a generating station. The House has already agreed this afternoon to the new Clause, which will provide that when application is made to construct or extend a generating station, notice shall be given, not only to the local authority but to the local planning authority. The first Amendment applies that, consequential, to the 1909 Act. The second, which is, as I say, also consequential, makes the necessary adaptation for Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In page 48, line 48, after "schemes" insert:
and with the substitution, for the reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, of a reference to the Town and Country Planing (Scotland) Act, 1947".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 11, at end insert:
In section ten A, in subsection (1), for the words 'Electricity Act, 1947', there shall be substituted the words 'Electricity Act, 1957'",

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on that in page 10, line 26, dealing with the supply of electricity to the railways.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 7, at end insert:
In section ninety-seven, in subsection (1), after the words British Electricity Authority', there shall be inserted the words or the Electricity Council'".

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the Local Government Act, 1948, the Central Electricity Authority has been paying the rates on behalf of the electricity boards to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government receives them on behalf of local authorities, and various adjustments are subsequently made. In future, the Electricity Council will make these payments, after the Central Electricity Authority has been dissolved, so that a reference to the Electricity Council is required. That is what the Amendment does.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 21, at end insert:

The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers)
Act, 1954

In section one, for the words 'the said Act', there shall be substituted the words that Act'.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that this Amendment could be taken with that in page 51, line 35.
By the 1954 Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, various limits were set to the borrowing by electricity and gas boards on capital account, but by Clause 14 (5) of this Bill a new limit of £1,400 million in aggregate outstanding has been set. The provisions of the 1954 Act, therefore, have become unnecessary, and the effect of these two Amendments will be to remove the nationalised electricity industry generally from the effect of the 1954 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 21, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:

The Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954

In section twelve, in subsection (1), after the words transfer; and' there shall be inserted the words 'subject to the next following subsection' and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—

'(1A) Where any regulations made under subsection (1) of this section provide for appeals to be brought as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of the said section fifty-five, the referee or board of referees on any such appeal may, and if so directed by the Court of Session shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings.'

5.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give to employees of Scottish electricity boards rights of appeal similar to those conferred by this Bill on employees of the Central Authority and the area boards. Clause 26 empowers the Minister to make regulations to compensate officers of the Central Authority and of area boards who suffer loss as a result of the operation of the Bill.
In accordance with Section 55 (5) (b) of the 1947 Act, where an appeal about such compensation is taken to a referee or board of referees there is no appeal from the decision of such a referee or board of referees, but, as the result of a proposal of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), Clause 26 (4) of the Bill now provides that in England and Wales there may be an appeal, on a point of law, to the High Court from the decision of a referee or board of referees.
It seems right, therefore, that a similar right should be conferred on officers of electricity boards who have suffered loss through the operation of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954. Section 12 of that Act provides machinery for compensating such persons, hut makes no provision for an appeal, and this Amendment is designed to give a similar right of appeal on a question of law to the Court of Session.
Since the reorganisation provisions of this Bill do not affect Scotland, they will not give rise to compensation claims in Scotland, but this Scottish Amendment concerns only claims that may arise as a consequence of the Scottish reorganisation brought about by the Act of 1954. It is considered proper that we should give the same right of appeal under that Act.

Mr. Palmer: I am sure that employees of the electricity supply industry in the South of Scotland will be grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Amendment in another place; and that we are grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for his explanation. As he says, the Bill does not concern Scotland, as Scottish electricity now runs more or less on its own.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act. I think that it is true that the compensation provisions in that Act run for a 10-year period, but there is, of course, another very important part of Scotland—so I am told—in the Highlands, which is looked after for electricity supply purposes by the Hydro-Electric Board. Perhaps I should have given the hon. Gentleman some notice of this, but I think that those compensation provisions are still in force. I do not think that they have run out, though I speak from memory.
If this advantage is to be extended, very properly and very generously, to electricity employees who may be adversely affected by the working out of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954—a Measure given approval, perhaps, before the present Bill was thought of—is there not some logic in the suggestion that a similar opportunity should be given to electricity employees in the North of Scotland. I shall be very grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary would promise, at least, to look at that point, if there is time.

Mr. Macpherson: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I will willingly look at the point. My recollection is that there is really no cause, after such a lapse of years, to make similar provisions in that case, but, if there seems that there is any such cause, we will certainly consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 25, at end insert:

The Rating and Valuation Act, 1957

In section two, after the words "Central Electricity Authority", in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or the Electricity Council"; and any reference in that section to any provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be construed as a reference to those provisions as amended by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I was explaining just now how the Electricity Council will, in future, make the global payments in lieu of rates on behalf of the old electricity industry under the Local Government Act, 1948, but a slight complication is introduced by the fact that, under Section 2 of the Rating


and Valuation Act, 1957, passed earlier in this Session, the Central Electricity Authority is obliged to make the payments in respect of this financial year. It will, in fact, make the payments for this financial year before the vesting date. These payments are made half-yearly, in July and in December, so that, so far as this financial year is concerned, we have no need to worry; it is all perfectly well arranged already.
We must, however, amend Section 2 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957, in order to include references to the Electricity Council so as to straighten the matter out for future years, and also in order to make it clear that the references in the 1957 Rating and Valuation Act to the Local Government Act, 1948, are references to that Act as amended, that is to say, by this Bill. That is done by this Amendment, which will be an Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 50, and the insertion will come before the House of Commons Disqualification Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 51, line 35 at end insert:


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 52.
The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954.
In section one, the words 'the British Electricity Authority and Area Electricity Boards, and of', and paragraph (a)




—[Mr. Renton.]

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1955–56

Resolutions reported,
1. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £9,399,195 11s. 6d., viz.:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
10,387,490
7
6


Total Deficits
…
988,294
16
0


Net Surplus
…
£9,399,195
11
6



And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 10 for Navy Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,620 15s. 4d. on Vote 15 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1952.
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £8,481,349 9s. 1d., viz.:—

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
26,515,975
6
8


Total Deficits
…
18,034,625
17
7


Net Surplus
…
£8,481,349
9
1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,179,464 4s. 7d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £76,660,356 6s. 4d. viz.:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
95,460,215
17
9


Total Deficits
…
18,799,859
11
5


Net Surplus
…
£76,660,356
6
4




And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £3,090,933 12s. 10d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.
(2) The application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

3. That the application of such sums he sanctioned.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 306–324.]

First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Financial Secretary will remember that, during the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised the general question of public accountability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) raised the same point also and made the suggestion that the Select Committee might look at the matter. Has the Financial Secretary anything to say about that?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has, since that debate, put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the First Lord, and I ought not to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply. The debate has obviously drawn his attention to the arguments.

Question put and agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

5.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed these and the following Regulations together.
Where appropriate, we have followed the pattern of the voluntary levy both as regards collection and distribution, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have been able to secure agreement on nearly all matters. Numerous methods of collecting the levy were considered, but, in the end, the scale given in the Schedule to the first of the two sets of Regulations was found to be the one most acceptable to the trade, and I hope, therefore, that it will meet with the approval of the House.
The Regulations provide also for payments for admission to cinema entertainments which are exempt from Entertainments Duty to be exempt also from levy. This follows the existing scheme and, in addition, any exhibitor taking less than £150 for admission in any one week, excluding Entertainments Duty on those takings, will be exempt from levy on that. There are arrangements for appropriate marginal relief also. These arrangements for exemption are rather more generous than those under the existing trade operated arrangements.
As to the Regulations relating to distribution, I should like to point out that claimants will now have a definite legal right to payments, which they did not have before. We are continuing the principle of distributing the levy in proportion to the box office success of all eligible films. This meets with general approval and follows the present practice which rewards merit and does not subsidise inefficiency.
There is one point to which I should like to refer, namely, that, to deal with possible abuses, whereby the earnings of films might be unfairly inflated in order to attract a larger share of the Fund—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Erroll: As I was saying, we have, to avoid the possibility of abuse, given a fairly wide measure of discretionary power to the Agency rather than attempted to frame complicated and detailed Regulations which would be unlikely to stop up all possible loopholes and might be somewhat inflexible. I am glad to be able to tell the House that these discretionary powers have received an unqualified welcome from all quarters consulted.
The Agency has power to make provisional payments, but this power is permissive and not obligatory. I do not think that this need cause any anxiety, and I understand that the Agency is already taking the necessary practical steps to make provisional payments on much the same lines as at present. The Agency was set up on 1st July, and is getting ready to come into operation fully on 20th October.
I hope, therefore, that the House will see its way to approving these draft Regulations today.

5.59 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: We are very glad to have the Parliamentary Secretary's brief explanation of these Regulations, but I think that there are one or two points which are causing some disquiet in the trade, on which it would be only proper to have a further disquisition from the hon. Gentleman.
Turning, first, to the Regulations dealing with the collection of the levy, it is true that the provisions for exemption are somewhat more generous than those under the private scheme, in so far as cinemas are now to be exempted if their net takings, instead of their gross takings as before, are £150 per week.
Of course, we all recognise that this does not really help the rather larger cinema which may, nevertheless, be in a very difficult position because, although its takings may be more than £150 and, therefore, not exempt, it may be running at a loss, or hardly breaking even. Under the private scheme there has been an arrangement with the renters whereby any cinema which was not exempt but

which was in considerable difficulties over payment of the levy could approach the renter and the renter agreed to make some adjustment in the hire charge.
My understanding of the present situation is that because these Regulations provide for a statutory levy, instead of a voluntary one, the renters appear not to be willing to continue with this practice and that may mean that we shall find a certain number of cinemas which may be in considerable difficulty and which will not be helped by the renters under what I call their shorn lamb policy. We should like to know whether the Government have any idea at all in their mind as to the way in which, if need be, such cinemas may be helped.
The Cinema Exhibitors' Association has put forward a suggestion that the President of the Board of Trade might require the Cinematograph Films Council to consider such cases and make recommendations for exemption from payment of the levy. That, perhaps, may be going rather too far in this first year before we see how things go, but I think it right to say to the House that there is fairly considerable disquiet in the trade on this point, because it does not look as though the informal arrangement which has made this work under the voluntary system is likely to be continued. That is the main concern that we have about the collection of the levy.
When we turn to the Regulations dealing with the distribution of the levy, there is one point which, I think, should be mentioned to the House before we approve the Regulations. It has been decided to take 20th October as the starting day for the first distribution period. That means that the distribution period is in effect settled for the next ten years and must always begin on the 20th October. Although we realise that the levy and the entertainments tax are theoretically completely separate subjects, nevertheless it will, I think, possibly be awkward in the future if we have the levy regulations beginning on the 20th October whereas any changes that there may be in entertainments tax would presumably take place fairly soon after a Budget which was introduced in April.
There may be a very long gap—as, in fact, there is this year—between changes in tax and possible changes in the levy. I mention that because it is


something which may prove awkward in the future, although I fully recognise that there were good reasons this year for going on to October instead of starting the payment period at, for example, the end of July.
The Parliamentary Secretary has assured us, I am happy to say, that under paragraph 5 provisional payments will he made as they have been made under the voluntary scheme. I am sure that the film producers will be very glad to have this assurance, because I know that there has been some anxiety about this matter of provisional payments, and I think that they will be glad to know that the Agency proposes to carry on making the usual very substantial provisional payments, even before they can come to the final computation of what any particular firm has earned. We are very glad to have that assurance.
On the other hand, when we come to paragraph 6, concerning the computation of earnings of films, once again there is considerable anxiety in the trade, and I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has not even referred to it, because under paragraph 6 provision is made in the first subsection that a long film shall receive one unit and a short film two and a half times the rate.
Considerable representations have been made, by the film producers, the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians and the Association of Specialised Film Producers, that the President of the Board of Trade ought to have included a special provision for second feature films. They formally asked, I understand, that for such features the unit should be twice the basic unit. So it is rather surprising that the Parliamentary Secertary, having received formal representations from three important associations in the trade, has not even mentioned today the reasons why the President of the Board of Trade has felt himself unable to accede to this request. I do not want to go into all the details about the difficulties which the makers of second feature films are now experimenting, because I think that they are well known to anyone familiar with conditions in the trade.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that, among other things, the National Film Finance Corporation makes very much more stringent

conditions for second feature films than it does for other types of films in offering assistance with finance. In general terms, I think that it is right to say that of all the groups of British films now being made they are suffering most at the present time, so I think that we are at least entitled to some explanation why, with such strong pressure, the President of the Board of Trade has not felt himself able to accede to the request.
When we come to the later provisions concerning what one might call the tightening up of procedure, particularly in cases where two or more films are being shown in the same programme, and where there may be some little adjustment between the earnings of one and another, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we very much welcome the proposals in the Regulations, because it is most important that everyone should feel that there is no possibility of any dishonest juggling with the money which, after all, is collected from other people in the trade.
We are, therefore, glad to see that proper discretion has been given to the Agency. I quite agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that that is the best way to do it. So far as I can judge, the Agency is being given adequate powers to deal with the kind of difficulty which it has been suggested may have arisen in one or two cases under the voluntary scheme. That seems to us a very proper provision in the Regulations.
Most of the other provisions in the Regulations are solely of technical interest. Before we conclude this brief debate, however, I should like to draw attention to one rather important point. It is something new so far as Parliament is concerned, although the voluntary scheme had some provision for the same thing. It is the position of films made for television. The Parliamentary Secretary might be more explicit, because this is important in view of the increase in the number of television films now made. The general principle is that if a film is made primarily for television it does not seem fair that it should receive part of the money which was intended really to support the production of films shown in commercial cinemas. As this is the first time that such a distinction between one type of film and another has been made in statutory form, I think that we


might have had a few words of explanation, because it is a matter of considerable public interest and of some interest in the trade.
There is one other small point which interests me personally and to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Paragraph 13, sub-paragraph 3, provides that the maker of a film may assign his responsibility to claim on the fund to some other person and that if he does so the assignee shall
… be deemed for all purposes of these Regulations to be the maker of the film to the exclusion of the actual maker thereof …
While, of course, one wants completely to safeguard the financial rights of any person to whom an assignment of this sort has been made, nevertheless it seems to me that the Agency should at least be permitted—it may not necessarily be obliged—to give to the actual maker of the film information as to the amount of levy which has been earned by any film of his.
It does not seem right that when we are dealing with a quasi-public fund—this is not a matter simply of private agreement between individuals—a maker who applies to the Board of Trade should not be given that information. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say that whereas there may not necessarily be any statutory obligation upon the Agency to give that information, there is nothing to prevent it giving the information to the actual maker of the film even though he may have assigned his financial rights to somebody else.
After all, the person who actually made the film has a great interest in what happens to it. It might strengthen his hand in any future negotiations if he could say, "My last film made such and such an amount and received so much from the fund". I hope very much that we can have this assurance.
That may seem to be a small point, but it is one which I believe to be of considerable importance to certain individuals. The whole purpose of these Regulations is to assist the makers of British films. I hope, therefore, that on that small point we may have a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. Apart from these relatively minor matters, we on this side support the Regulations.

6.12 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I should like briefly to support the earlier remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). While we all welcome the general agreement on the levy, there are some cinemas which are above the £150 limit which were previously exempt from the levy, but which now will have to pay it and will be considerably affected. As there are so few cases, I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look sympathetically at them.
There is one such cinema which serves part of my constituency. It has a seating capacity of 2,000 and runs the "second run" films. Previously, this cinema was exempt from the levy, but it will now have to pay the statutory levy. There are very few such cinemas. If the Minister will consider them and help them if possible, I shall be grateful, along with those others who are similarly affected.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. John Howard: I shall detain the House for only a few moments in elaborating the point concerning the larger cinema whose takings, although they may be a little above £150 a week, are still insufficient to sustain the standing charges. Those cinemas may, by reason of wages to staff, rent and rates and the usual outgoings, require to take more than £150 before they can break even. Under the old voluntary scheme, the renters made concessions by reducing the film hire for this type of cinema, but if a reduction in film hire was inadequate and the cinema was still unable to pay its way under the voluntary scheme, no action was taken to collect the film levy.
It is quite apparent that the producers and renters together have an interest in keeping the cinema alive. If they waive a certain part of the film hire, the cinema is able to make sufficient money to keep going and a certain amount of the takings eventually flows back into the production end of the trade. If we look at the problem in the inflexible way that the Regulations treat it, there will be no ground for concession; the full levy has to be exacted from the cinema irrespective of its standing charges and, at the


same time, there is not the encouragement to the renter to make a concession.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this matter. He might possibly suggest that one body, either the B.F.P.A. or some other body, could examine the accounts of the cinemas and if it appears that the payment of the levy is causing a cinema to lose money every week, possibly concessions could be made by waiving the levy. At the same time, a certain responsibility rests upon the trade itself in the intervening period. The end of the trade of which I am thinking is the production end and the renters. They could continue to make some form of concession in film hire to these cinemas in the hope that my hon. Friend might come to their rescue later.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) remarked upon the brevity of my opening remarks. She will, I am sure, appreciate that I intended no discourtesy to the House. I wished to refer particularly to the points contained in the Regulations, knowing full well that there might he matters lying to one side of the Regulations which might be raised by hon. Members and that in my opening remarks I could not exactly anticipate which points might be raised.
I should like to deal, first, with the question of exemptions for individual larger cinemas. We examined very carefully the possibilities of providing some sort of an exemption scheme for the special case of the larger cinema which is faring badly at the present time. We received conflicting views on the matter and we came to the conclusion that the disadvantages of such a scheme as was outlined, for example, by the hon. Lady would outweigh the advantages.
We feel that while in the future there may still be cases of individual difficulty, they should be substantially reduced for the reasons which I shall give. First, the exemption limit has been raised from £150 gross to approximately £190 gross. Then, there has been a reduction in the levy on the cheaper seats and also a reduction in Entertainments Duty. The new levy and duty scales are so designed to enable cinemas to retain a larger proportion of the increase in seat prices than was formerly the case in a great many instances.

There are signs, if one is to judge by the trade Press, that there may well be increases in the prices of seats in the coming months which will enable those cinemas which are particularly hard hit to take advantage of a general advance, small though it may be, in seat prices.
We feel, therefore, that those cinemas which, in the past have been hard hit and those which have had some measure of relief from the special scheme operated under the voluntary scheme should think not only on the basis of past earnings and outgoings, but should make a reassessment of the likely trend of events in the coming months based on the considerations which I have just given. I would only add that we fully understand the difficulties which the cinemas have been experiencing, but after thinking the matter over carefully we feel that for the time being at least we should wait to see how the Regulations work out in practice.
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that the levy changes will in future years take place in October, whereas Budget changes arise in April, and that this might cause difficulty. We have to remember that the starting date of 20th October was chosen because the trade-operated scheme was due to come to an end in that month. By choosing any other date, we should have had to accept the consequences either of a hiatus between the end of one scheme and the beginning of another or of overlapping. So that it was surely worth while to make the new scheme start where the old scheme left off. In any case, it is surely desirable to avoid linking the levy with Entertainments Duty.

Mr. Douglas Jay: We do have October Budgets under the present Government.

Mr. Erroll: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) would not be able to resist making a crack like that, but he was well answered by the Economic Secretary earlier today. The eventuality that the right hon. Gentleman describes is not likely to occur.
The next matter the hon. Lady mentioned was that of payment for second feature films. As hon. Members will know those films, like short films, are let for a fixed sum instead of on the basis of a percentage of the box office takings, as are first feature films. It was suggested in some quarters that the earnings


of second feature films should be multiplied by two, and their share of the levy should be calculated in much the same way as is that of short films, whose earnings are multiplied by two and a half.
I will admit straight away that the arguments for and against are fairly finely balanced. The arguments in favour of special consideration for second feature films are that there is a great demand by cinema patrons and exhibitors for the long supporting films and that their production has become uneconomic owing to increased costs of production at a time when there is less money available for supporting programme features. This, in turn, has led to a serious drop in second feature film production so that second feature films are simply not available in sufficient quantity. A larger levy for second feature films would assist such production. That is how the arguments run.
I will now put the arguments on the other side. On the other side we feel that the solution of the problem is best left to the economic forces in the trade. If second feature films are really in great public demand we think the public will be willing to pay a little more for the longer programmes these films make possible, and this, in turn, will enable higher rents to be obtained for second feature films. Alternatively, if the public tends to stay away because of the absence or poor quality of the supporting programmes it must be in the interest of the exhibitor and supplier to ensure that the production of second feature films becomes a paying proposition and that second feature films get a proper economic rental.
It is questionable whether a multiplier of two would have the effect the hon. Lady has suggested, because it is quite likely that in present conditions of financial stringency rents for second feature films would be forced down by exhibitors on the ground that those films were now getting substantially increased contributions from the levy. That would mean that the producers of second feature films could not get so much by way of letting. Indeed, the experience of the producers of short films would seem to bear that out. So, after considering the pros and cons very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it will be better to provide no special payment for this class of film.
As for television films, we did take very carefully into account the views put forward most strongly by the trade that the levy on cinemas should not be used to assist the production of television films. We realise, however, that this may well be a growing market, and we feel that the regulations as framed are probably right for the time being. We are keeping very closely in touch with the development of television film production and of films suitable for showing on television, and we shall make quite certain that we are not left behind in this important matter.
Another matter which was raised was that of the publication of details of levy payments. I should make it plain that the Board of Trade has no power to compel the Agency to publish details of payments, but we appreciate that the problem is a difficult one. I would only say that the Agency has been in operation for only a very short time, and that I am sure that it will be guided by the views of the House and of other interested parties in deciding in its discretion whether it should make any publication of individual figures.

Mrs. White: There are really two separate issues. One is that of the figures for all recipients should be made public. The other is that the individual maker of a film should be given information if he personally asks for it though it need not necessarily be made available to the general public.

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I had been thinking of the general question. I appreciate that her suggestion is a different one. It is the sort of question that I should like to leave with the Agency for the time being, saying only, in conclusion, that the Board of Trade has no power to compel the Agency to divulge such a figure even on an individual basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 26th June], approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)

6.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
I think. Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to consider this and the following Order together.

Mr. Speaker: If the House pleases.

Mr. Erroll: The purpose of the latter Order is to increase the yield of the Research Levy from about £155,000 to about £200,000 and to make some minor alterations in the range of persons liable to pay the levy so as to bring it more into accord with the present conditions and current developments in the industry. We are also taking the opportunity of making this a consolidation Order, and it will replace earlier Orders on this levy.
The money is required to provide for additional capital expenditure by the Wool Industry Research Association and to meet increased costs since the levy was introduced. The Wool Textile Research Council also wishes to increase its grants to other bodies carrying out research. As hon. Members will know, the Board of Trade has to satisfy itself about the case submitted by the Wool Textile Delegation, which represents about 85 per cent. of the industry, and which has in this case asked for the increase in the rates of levy. We are so satisfied. We know that it is also supported by the great majority of the firms in the industry, and, I would add, by the organisations of employees in the industry, although I think it would be only fair to mention that the support is not completely unanimous and that a very small number of firms and organisations expressed objections. However, in our opinion there was not sufficient objection to justify refusal of the request made by the Wool Textile Delegation.
The first of the two Orders increases the yield of the parallel Export Promotion Levy from about £115,000 a year to about £200,000 a year. This is to meet increased costs and to build up the promotion of sales in North America. It is

also proposed to introduce sales promotion campaigns in the other export markets and to exhibit at certain important trade fairs and exhibitions.
As a result of statutory consultations, as with the other Order, we have found a large majority of firms in favour of the increase. It was also supported by organisations of employees in the industry. As with the other Order, there were a very small number of objections, but we do not feel that they were sufficiently serious to refuse the request of the Wool Textile Delegation. Accordingly, I hope that the House will see its way to approve the Orders.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. IL Rhodes,: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about these two Orders because we in the Opposition have a high regard for the wool textile industry which is so important to our exports. As I am personally engaged in the industry and have been so engaged all my life, I am proud to have this opportunity. The Order dealing with the export promotion levy is designed to increase the amount of promotion that we want to do. We want to do more in the North American countries, the United States and Canada, because it is there that we earn our dollars. We who are engaged in this industry convert a sterling area commodity into dollars and last year we exported to Canada and the United States £42 million worth of goads.
We have the highest record in exports of any manufacturing industry, and anything that is introduced in the House which has to do with expanding our exports is of great importance to us. This is a good industry and one well worth while looking after. We do not come to the Board of Trade on any slight pretext. It is only when we have something serious to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary will have found in his experience, that we ever come to any Government Department to ask for assistance. We have asked for the good offices of the Board of Trade in collecting this levy for us so that we can use it as we think best.
I have the greatest faith in those who operate the National Wool Textile Export Corporation. They are a first-class body of business men who are selfless in their desire to see an expansion of worsted and


wool exports for the whole of the trade. Throughout the years that I have had experience with them I have always found them keen and energetic and never neglecting to further the interests of the trade.
We in the trade also want to do a little more in terms of taking part in various fairs and exhibitions. We have not done quite enough in the last year or two. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there has been some division of opinion about the importance of fairs and exhibitions in the promotion of overseas trade. Our industry is composed of firms which are small in comparison with large-scale industry elsewhere. The majority of the firms employ from 10 to 500 employees and the specialities produced by these small firms are peculiar to their own individual traditions.
Naturally, therefore, there is some contention as to whether exhibitions are of use or not but I would remind sections of our industry which may not be as enthusiastic about the promotion of our goods as are some others that if it were left to individual firms to do it, in all probability very little would be done. It is only by securing a levy of this kind that the money can be guaranteed, because this promotion is a heavy responsibility.
We in the industry are proud that the Board of Trade has chosen the wool industry along with the aeronautic industry, the atomic energy industry, and the tourist trade to represent Britain in the exhibition of world trade in New York in April next year. We are also proud that we have the backing of the Board of Trade for a curtain-raiser in Brussels next year for anything that there may be in the future by way of a European Common Market. We are proposing to spend about £50,000 on one exhibition there in furtherance of our trade. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the success that we had in Frankfurt last year and this year, and how, as a result, we have expanded our sales, despite increasing competition in Germany from elsewhere during the last two years.
I should like to stress at this juncture that the Board of Trade, and the economists who advise it, should not pay too much attention to those who think that

the old-established industries in this country can be jeopardised or be expended in favour of the newer, more fashionable industries which are in the news today. It may interest the House to know that when the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee paid a recent visit to the National Physical Laboratory and we saw there "Deuce" and "Ace", the great new electronic computers and we asked the head of the department how long it would be before other countries could imitate and make computers of the same size and be ready to put them on the market, he said that our lead was about three years. If that is the case, in view of how good imitators such people as the Japanese are, it can be assumed that in a few years' time what are considered today to be new and exciting industries may be in a position similar to that of some of our old-established industries in having to resist competition. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to everybody in the Government who has anything to do with the problems we are confronting in the older industries, that we must fight for every bit of trade we have got, and that it does not matter whether we are old industries or new. On that basis we in the wool textile industry are playing our part.
There is another activity supported by the levy, that is, the protection of our trade in countries where our interests may be threatened by tariffs or quotas. Nowadays the way in which we export our woollens and our worsteds means that we cannot accompany every consignment ourselves, as was done in the days of my great-great grandfather. Then they used to take their woollens from our district on the deck of a sailing ship and they slept on top of the bale, with their heads sticking out from the tarpaulin which covered them. And they had a way with them, because I understand that many complaints were made in New York about the way in which folks from our district used to look after their own interests.
We can no longer do it as individuals because the trade is on far too big a scale, so somebody has to do it for us, and that is the Wool Textile Corporation for which this levy is required. If it were not for the Wool Textile Corporation there perhaps would not be as energetic an opposition as there is to the present imposition that the United States has inflicted on our trade.
The services of people overseas, which cost money, have been brought in during the last year or two on account of the American quota. We regret that quota very much. As soon as there is 5 per cent. of the domestic manufacture imported the tariff goes up from 25 per cent, to 45 per cent., which puts our fine products at a disadvantage. The Japanese, who have imitated our more plain manufactures, find it easier than we do to get their cloths into the United States market because they are more straight-forward to make and the finer and more craftsmanlike cloths we produce are longer in the making. Thus the quota is filled, and cancellations of our orders takes place.
Another thing I want to mention is that many people in the industry have been trying to persuade the wool technicians and the Export Corporation that it might be a good thing if we started promotion for home sales. If the Parliamentary Secretary has been in on any of these negotiations or talks with the industry, I dare say he will have found that this has been mentioned. Personally I am against it. I think we ought to concentrate all our activities in promotion for some years ahead on the export market. It will take us all our time and it will take all the money we have to do that, and to do it properly. The disadvantage we happen to be in is that ours is the only textile which is subject to a 10 per cent. Purchase Tax on the piece. It would be a pity if the money we are raising for this promotion scheme were diverted at some future time to the promotion of home sales, because we suffer a disadvantage through that taxation.
The levy is straightforward, we welcome it, it is needed. I think that we shall need more, and perhaps it would have been as well if the levy had been cast a little higher for this job, bearing in mind the way in which the value of the £ seems to be declining over the years.
I have not a great deal to say on the research side. I wish I could be as complimentary as I have been on export promotion but, unfortunately, I cannot. I have had experience of this business for a long time now and my interests in the textile industry have spread beyond the narrow confines of the wool textile industry itself. I believe that the time has come when there should be a recasting of the methods employed in

research into the textile industry. For instance, there is too much duplication of effort. We find that research associations are spending small amounts on the same jobs, because there is not enough liaison. The original conception of research, as outlined at the time when the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was set up, may need a new fillip and an altogether new idea.
I believe that complacency has set in and that it is likely to become even more pronounced. I shall not oppose the Order because the money is needed if this is the course on which we are set, but I do not think it is the right one, so I appeal to the Government to look at it again. There could be more liaison, the money could be used better if one job common to the whole range of the textile industry could be done in one place, backed by adequate money, and the research stations could carry on with the day-to-day work they do for the firms they serve. As I say, we do not oppose the Order, but I have taken the opportunity to draw attention to something which is likely to be an urgent need in the future.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question which arises from what my hon. Friend said. We all deplore the action which the United States Govment propose or threaten to take to put new obstacles in the way of our woollen exports which are of such value.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was very careful not to exceed the bounds of order, but I was very restless when the quota was mentioned, because it is certainly not comprehended by the Order.

Mr. Jay: I thought that as the Order referred to export promotion it was permissible to ask the Parliamentary Secretary questions arising out of that.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the American quota is export promotion.

Mr. Jay: I do not want to press the point, but the quota is liable to frustrate the export promotion to which the Order refers. I wanted to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government would press this point to carry out the purpose of the Order.

Mr. Speaker: That was answered earlier today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 24th May], approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) MEASURES

6.51 p.m.

Sir John Crowder: I beg to move,
That the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measure, 1931 (Amendment) Measure, 1957, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As hon. Members know, the Channel Islands are for ecclesiastical purposes in the Diocese of Winchester, but constitutionally they have a position peculiar to themselves. In consequence, Church Assembly Measures would not affect them unless special machinery existed for applying them to the Islands. Such machinery was set up by a Measure passed in 1931. However, this Measure contained certain limitations on the time within which the machinery which is set up could be used.
These time limits are now thought to be generally unnecessary, and the object of this short Measure is to remove them. There is also a particular reason for their removal. It is necessary to form

a new parish in the Island of Jersey. The obvious way of doing it would be under the provisions of the New Parishes Measure, 1943, if that Measure had applied to the Islands. Unfortunately, throughout the period when it could have been applied, the Islands were in German occupation. If the time limits are removed, it will be possible to take the necessary steps to apply the Measure and so allow the new parish to be formed.
The Measure has been approved by the States of Deliberation of the Islands and by the Decanal Conferences of the Islands. It passed through all its stages in the Assembly without a division and no amendment was made or proposed. I hope that the House will feel that this is a Measure to which it can give its assent.

6.53 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Motion.
The Legislative Committee of the National Assembly of the Church of England submitted this Measure to the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee found no difficulty in making a favourable report upon it. As the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) said, the Measure has been approved by the States of Deliberation and by the Decanal Conferences of the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey. The Measure does not prejudicially affect the constitutional rights of any of Her Majesty's subjects. The purpose of the Measure has been explained briefly by the hon. Member and a more detailed explanation of it may be found in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that the House will pass the Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

TINNED MILK (SURPLUS STOCKS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I acknowledge with appreciation the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The issue I want to raise is that of the methods of disposal by his Ministry of 19,000 tons, or 167 million tins, of full cream, unsweetened milk, declared surplus to requirements after the end of control in March, 1954, and, in particular, the totally inadequate provisions which were adopted to ensure the enforcement of the conditions for the protection of the public which the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry thought necessary at the time.
This milk was sold under covenant which declared that it should not be sold through the retail trade and that it should be sold only for manufacturing purposes, for animal feeding, or for export. Only too late it was discovered that the covenant was valueless, that it did not run with the goods, and, therefore, could not be passed further than the person with whom the covenant was made. It has been found that perhaps millions of these tins have got into the hands of third parties over whom the Minister has no control.
This has caused considerable embarrassment to the manufacturers concerned and has allowed a flood of this sort of commodity on to the market purporting to be fresh milk. The public has been invited to buy the milk, not realising that some of it may be three or four years old. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was not foreseen that the covenant would be completely valueless and unenforceable over third parties, where it required to be enforceable, and why the tins were not marked, or the milk not bulked, as was finally necessary with the remainder of the milk, when it was put on the market.
I admit that since I and other hon. Members raised the matter the appalling complexity of the position has been made clear. In a supplementary question on 4th April, I said that a firm, Messrs. George Mence Smith, Ltd., was involved

in this sort of transaction. The firm has now told me that it has never purchased from the Ministry of Food or from any other Government Department or any agency stocks of tinned milk of doubtful age or unfit for human consumption, and it has said most emphatically that it would never even contemplate retailing such goods to the public for consumption. I am very happy to have that assurance and glad to pass it on to the House.
However, it is common ground and acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman that this milk is on the market and at this very moment is on sale to the public and still purporting to be fresh milk when it may be very old. From my constituency have come reports of cases of such milk produced in 1953 on sale as milk which the manufacturers would not regard as fresh milk. Analysis has shown it to be discoloured and the tins etched with rust, a fairly clear indication, apart from the manufacturers' views, of age.
Since the matter was first raised, with all the difficulties of proof, a case has been determined in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court where Mr. Justice Stable in the case of the United Dairies v. Thomas Robinson, Sons &amp; Co. Ltd. declared that it was a misrepresentation to sell as fresh milk, milk which was older than six months.
In reply to a series of Questions in April the Minister undertook to make inquiries and to consider what action could be taken for the enforcement of the covenants and the protection of the public at that time and in the future. He said that it was possible that some of these firms would be barred from receiving future supplies from his Ministry. I should like to know what steps, if any, the right hon. Gentleman has taken to enforce this covenant in any case, if there are any cases, and what firms have been barred from receiving supplies of this sort, either of milk or of other commodities.
I know that in my constituency, apart from the supplies from the Ministry, there are fairly substantial quantities of defective canned foods available in the shops. Quite recently a local authority in northwest Kent applied to the magistrates for, and got, an order for the destruction of


some of those foods. It is suspected by some of those authorities that, although most of these foods are not from the Ministry, some of them are. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what other foods of this kind have been disposed of to firms under covenants similar to those in respect of the tinned milk to which I have been referring.
It is extremely unfortunate that when this House has spent such a long time discussing pure and clean food the Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should allow these quantities of food to be placed on the market and so make it much more difficult for local authorities, at least morally, to enforce the regulations for clean food and the protection of the public.
I would ask the Minister if he has taken any steps to protect the public in this way, and especially if he will notify local authorities of the precise details of all foods which have been supplied and which were defective in this way—not necessarily unfit for human consumption but in any way defective, in the sense that they were at least stale. I should like him particularly to notify local authorities of the makes, the brands and the code numbers of such supplies, so that the public health inspectors may be alerted to the dangers that exist and keep a careful watch upon public protection. It is a very serious matter that this vast quantity of food should be on the market and that the degree of protection of the public to be expected from a Government Department should not be properly provided.

7.2 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The matter which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) has raised is a perfectly legitimate and proper one for examination. I am glad of this opportunity to say a few words about the disposal of this tinned milk, so that I may correct one or two misconceptions which have crept in, and also, perhaps, allay certain of the fears that have been expressed about this milk not being fit for human consumption.
In 1954 the Government decided to free the condensed milk trade and at that time my Department was left with very con-

siderable stocks. Since then it has disposed, as the hon. Member said, of 167 million tins. I thought that the hon. Member said "tons" but it is "tins."

Mr. Irving: I said 19,000 tons—or 167 million tins.

Mr. Amory: I misunderstood the hon. Member. That is a very considerable quantity, but I think that we have disposed of it in a sensible and proper manner. The first thing we did at the time of decontrol was to offer this milk back to the original manufacturers, on the ground that we thought that the original manufacturers would be in the best position to dispose of it with the minimum disturbance to the trade, and also, as they would have their pride in the quality of their brand and their label, that that would be the best and most effective way of safeguarding the consumers' interest. More than half the stocks of 167 million tins were disposed of in this way. As far as that part of the condensed milk goes probably everything was all right.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Can the Minister give us some indication of the price at which these stocks were disposed of?

Mr. Amory: As I have said before, it has never been the practice to disclose the price at which commercial stocks have been disposed of individually. For commercial reasons, only aggregate figures are given. So I am not in a position to give the precise prices at which the various lots of this milk were disposed of.
The quantity that remained, which was less than half the total quantity, represented entirely condensed milk manufactured between 1952 and 1954, and not the old wartime supplies. At that time the Department told the manufacturers that it proposed to dispose of this milk with as little loss to the taxpayers as possible but that, at the same time, it did not want to do anything to disrupt the trade to such an extent that the interruption would interfere with the trade taking fresh condensed milk made from the surplus milk at the time of the annual spring flush.
It was, therefore, agreed that any sales from the Department's stocks would be subject to a condition excluding sales through retail channels on the home market. So, as the hon. Member has said, these stocks were sold either for


export or for use in manufacture, or for stockfeed. In each case my Department required its customers to give an undertaking that the milk would be used in one of those ways.
That was quite a normal and not an exceptional procedure for the disposal of stocks, the quality of which we could not warrant absolutely. We tried stripping the tins of their labels, but we found that this was an extremely costly business, which would be justified only if it were necessary in order to safeguard public health.
It has been said that in spite of these undertakings some of this milk has, in fact, found its way on to the retail market. I have no evidence as to the precise quantities, but I should be extremely surprised if the quantity that has found its way on to the retail market was anything like as considerable as the hon. Member implied, although there is some circumstantial evidence that some may have done.

Mr. Irving: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he denies the evidence given in the High Court, which led to a successful application by United Dairies in the case of United Dairies v. Thomas Robinson, Sons &amp; Co. Ltd., which was concerned with the issue of that sort of milk. The evidence is available.

Mr. Amory: I should be glad to look into that point, but my information is that, while there is circumstantial evidence that some of the milk has got on to the market, there is no evidence that the quantity is at all considerable. However, many people, including hon. Members, have been rightly concerned lest the public should buy this tinned milk in the belief that it is freshly made.
When the matter was last raised in the House I gave assurances that I would have inquiries made, and I should like to explain to the House the legal position as revealed by those inquiries. The manufacturers of this milk gave a warranty of six months in respect of sweetened milk and twelve months for unsweetened—evaporated—milk when they sold it to the Ministry. After that they took no responsibility for the condition of the milk. This is not tantamount to saying that the milk is unfit for human consumption after the period of the warranty has expired. It is in fact normally

quite wholesome for a number of years—so I am advised—the period depending upon the original type and quality of the milk and how it was stored. After a time, however, it can undoubtedly develop what might be called minor defects.
These minor defects would not, however, render the milk unfit for human consumption. They would render it unattractive by, for example, discolouration. It tends to turn a rather darker colour, and, in the case of sweetened milk, some of the sugar may sink to the bottom of the tin. In some cases small particles of the milk fat can separate and spoil the appearance of the milk. If storage has not been good, the tins show signs of rusting. It would obviously be wrong for the Government to sell milk which may be of that nature for the counter trade, not because of any risk to health, but because of the harm that might unwittingly be done to the good name of the original manufacturer who would normally sell the milk before it reached that condition.
I am advised that a trader who sold milk to the public, despite the undertaking he had entered into, would be acting illegally if the milk proved upon analysis to be unfit for human consumption when it was sold by him, or if the sale could be shown to be to the prejudice of the purchaser because the milk was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. The latter might be the case if the trader had altered or re-labelled the tins in such a way as to misrepresent the contents. Those are the circumstances in which the breaking of the undertaking would be illegal. Of course, someone believed to have broken his undertaking could be proceeded against by civil action, but in that case damages would have to be proved.
To safeguard the public against danger in the first case we made a practice—this answers the question asked by the hon. Gentleman—of notifying local health and food and drug authorities in all the districts in which sales were made for animal feeding purposes. As a result, many samples were taken from the tins, but in no case that I have heard of was the milk found to be unfit for human consumption. Local authorities have,


therefore, found no grounds for proceeding against the sellers on that account. The second offence, that of re-labelling deliberately, leading to misrepresentation, is one of a criminal nature, and the law for dealing with it already exists. Indeed, a prosecution was successfully brought by the police against certain persons found to have forged fascimiles of well-known labels and to have affixed them to tins of milk bought from my Department. The offence consisted not of selling the milk, but of forging the labels.
I believe that in this matter we have proceeded sensibly and reasonably. Though we have taken all the steps open to us to trace deliberate breaking of the undertakings, in the cases that we have investigated we have not found anything that could amount to proof of a deliberate breaking of it. We have gone into this question thoroughly, as indeed we ought to do. So far as we can discover, there has never been any question of danger to public health at all. My Department took what I believe were reasonable steps to ensure that the milk should not be offered for ordinary retail sale, and if,

in fact, some tins have found their way into the retail trade, as I think there is circumstantial evidence for believing, they can have amounted to only an extremely small proportion of the very large quantities involved and no risk to public health has resulted.

Mr. Irving: May I ask the Minister whether there have been other foods of this kind issued by his Department in similar circumstances? At what stage were the public health authorities notified about this material being issued from his Department?

Mr. Amory: I have no specific information with me on the first point. I think it likely that there have been, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him. If he feels that there is any ground for anxiety resulting from the information I send him, no doubt he will raise the matter. I will give him such information as I have regarding his second point about the precise time at which local authorities were notified.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Seven o'clock.